Recent editorials from West Virginia newspapers:
___
July 23
The Charleston Daily Mail asks why the West Virginia Supreme Court wants secrecy:
The West Virginia Supreme Court doesn’t like to be scrutinized. And the more it is scrutinized by the news media and members of the House Judiciary Committee considering impeachment of one or more of the justices, the more the public can see why.
There are too many questions of careless spending of taxpayers’ dollars and too many alleged instances of using state resources for personal use - not to mention too many questions of nondisclosed relationships a sitting justice had with an attorney arguing a case before the court.
So after recent allegations regarding Justice Allen Loughry came to light, thanks to the investigative reporting of WCHS-TV reporter Kennie Bass, the spotlight began to shine on goings on at the court. And the court doesn’t like it.
That was made clear after just one day of hearings by the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment proceedings. The court’s acting administrator sent the Committee a letter telling Judiciary members, in so many words, to knock it off.
“In short,” said a letter to Committee Chairman John Shott by Supreme Court Interim Administrator Barbara Allen, “a full-fledged fishing expedition is now underway. …”
As the Daily Mail opined last week, what Allen fails to recognize is the legislators on the committee are doing their constitutionally authorized job as representatives of the people of West Virginia to investigate the court.
When committee members late last week announced plans to tour the Supreme Court facilities in the Capitol building’s East Wing, Administrator Allen informed them that the news media would not be allowed in, nor could committee members take photographs inside the Supreme Court offices, adding further resistance by the court to the public’s right to know.
Fortunately, a majority of the members of the Judiciary committee understand what Allen, or anyone who directed her to write the letter and tour rules - does not. These facilities were built and paid for - and renovated and refurnished countless times - at high cost thanks to West Virginia taxpayers. The justices and their staff are paid by taxpayers. While standards of decorum are certainly called for in the area, the West Virginia public, not the Supreme Court, owns the space.
At the urging of Delegate Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, the Judiciary Committee decided against a tour without the news media present. The committee is now working with the West Virginia Press Association for a media pool to accompany the committee in a tour later this week.
Who knows what additional extravagances will be revealed during the tour and how much more the court administrator will seek to slow the investigation. But the more resistance the committee gets, the more it needs to push, including calling on administrator Allen to testify to determine if she is the one pushing back, or if she is being directed to do so by one or more justices.
Online: http://www.charlestondailymail.com/
___
July 20
The Herald-Dispatch on a flood-recovery program:
The bad optics for those put in charge of a program to help people affected by the devastating flooding in West Virginia in June 2016 have gotten worse.
In recent months, plenty of questions have been raised about the relatively little progress made by the RISE West Virginia program. It was established in the state Department of Commerce to use $150 million in federal money received in May 2017 to help flood victims rebuild homes wiped out by high waters more than two years ago.
But to date, the program has spent less than $1.5 million, with more than a third of that on administrative costs. Less than a dozen homes for flood victims have been completed. One of the concerns was the awarding of a contract that grew in size but was not authorized per state standards. State lawmakers are investigating to find out what went wrong, and several state workers involved with the program are no longer employed, including former Commerce Secretary Woody Thrasher.
Making this picture worse is word that came this month about how some of the federal flood-recovery money was spent. Findings of research by the state Auditor’s Office presented to the Joint Legislative Committee on Flooding show the Department of Commerce used at least $10,500 of that federal flood-recovery money on a September 2017 retreat at the Stonewall Resort, a AAA Four Diamond-rated facility in Roanoke, according to a report by the Charleston Gazette-Mail.
In total, the state spent about $21,000 on that trip, which included officials in the RISE WV program, including several who are no longer employed by the state, as well as various Department of Commerce officials. The first day of the two-day gathering - called the West Virginia Community Advancement and Development Impact Summit - included an update on RISE WV and the state’s Community Development Block Grant program, while day two was focused on broadband. Overall, the summit was intended to “discuss the aligning of operations,” the Gazette-Mail reported.
A letter of agreement between the state and the resort shows the trip included a cocktail reception and a plated-dinner banquet, the newspaper reported.
A spokeswoman from the Department of Commerce told the Gazette-Mail that meetings such as the 2017 Impact Summit were included in the disaster recovery action plan. In that case, it was a bad plan.
Two problems here.
First, it’s questionable whether any taxpayer money should be spent on retreats at a resort. Surely there are state-owned buildings in Charleston where officials can gather to discuss initiatives without having to pay for overnight accommodations, travel and a banquet.
Second, to use money intended to help disaster victims in such a way is inexcusable. The fact that the program has failed to make much of a dent in rebuilding housing for those victims only makes it worse, in retrospect. It all suggests that a summit intended to “align operations” failed miserably in serving the people who most needed it.
Online: http://www.herald-dispatch.com/
___
July 21
The Journal of Martinsburg on why West Virginia’s sore loser law matters:
Politics can be a messy business, especially when election season rolls around. Candidates often take out attack advertisements against each other, sometimes ignoring platforms of their campaigns in favor of focusing on tearing down their opponents.
It can be quite cutthroat, so it’s important to make sure we have laws and guidelines in place to ensure a fair election.
One of those laws - the sore loser law - in West Virginia has recently garnered attention. Don Blankenship, who lost the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate race to Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, recently collected signatures in order to run for the same office under affiliation with the Constitution Party, according to a Journal article Tuesday.
Even with the signatures, Blankenship may be blocked from running for the office. A spokesman for the Office of the Secretary of State said it cannot rule on Blankenship’s candidacy until he files all the necessary nomination and candidacy paperwork, including more than 6,000 signatures. According to a guide book listed on the West Virginia Secretary of State website, “candidates affiliated with a recognized political party who run for election in a primary election and who lose the nomination cannot change her or his voter registration to a minor party organization/unaffiliated candidate to take advantage of the later filing deadlines and have their name on the subsequent general election ballot.”
Aside from how one feels about Blankenship, Morrisey, Sen. Joe Manchin or anyone else affiliated with this race, it’s important to recognize why a law like this matters to our democracy.
The purpose of being an elected official is to represent constituents and act in the best interest of those you represent. Oftentimes, unfortunately, those running for office lose sight of that job description. Sometimes career politicians keep running and make political choices to further their careers and jump to the next office. Other times people enter the political sphere to make a statement that has nothing to do with constituents, but rather their own personal reputation or gain.
The sore loser law has the ability to keep politicians in check and limit the steps they can take just to be elected. So, if someone is fairly defeated in a primary but chooses to attempt to throw the standards of democratic elections aside, a law like this can stand in the way and protect citizens from being an oversight.
Our political landscape may not be perfect, but laws like this make a solid effort to level the playing ground and keep those running for office in line with the democratic principles and values of the U.S.
Online: http://www.journal-news.net/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.