State Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman said Wednesday that the public should have known about the frequent e-mail messages former Justice Spike Maynard was sending to Massey Energy President Don Blankenship.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- State Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman said Wednesday that the public should have known about the frequent e-mail messages former Justice Spike Maynard was sending to Massey Energy President Don Blankenship.
Workman concluded that information about the e-mails would have made clear the close relationship between Blankenship, whose company was appealing a $50 million verdict against it, and Maynard, who had refused to recuse himself from that appeal.
In a dissenting opinion, Workman said the e-mail messages sought by The Associated Press were public records that should have been released under West Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.
"Put simply, when a judge or a justice communicates, via a record that is prepared, owned and retained by a public body, with a party litigant (or someone closely connected therewith) while that party's case is pending before that judge, such communication necessarily contains information that relates to that judge or justice's conduct of the public's business to the extent that it reveals the nature of the relationship between the two," Workman wrote.
Last week, the court voted 4-1 that 13 e-mail messages between Maynard and Blankenship did not have to be released under the state's public records law. Supreme Court Administrator Steve Canterbury had refused an AP request for those messages.
Justice Robin Davis, writing for the majority, said the e-mail messages were private -- rather than public -- records and not subject to West Virginia's FOIA.
In doing so, Davis cited two federal court rulings that defined the sorts of records that are "agency records" under federal law. One federal case allowed a National Labor Relations Board member to keep secret her e-mails and faxes seeking reappointment to the NLRB. The other allowed a Securities and Exchange Commission director to keep private his appointment calendar and other similar documents.
Workman noted in her dissent that the federal definition of "agency records" is much broader than West Virginia's definition of "public records." She said Davis, in relying on the federal definition, was "unhelpful and misleading" in deciding the Maynard case.
In addition, Workman said that Maynard should have disclosed the e-mail messages to Blankenship under the state's Code of Judicial Conduct, which aims to protect public confidence in the courts.
"To maintain the public confidence necessary to sustain the legitimacy of the judiciary, judges must disclose, when requested under FOIA, their communication with party litigants," Workman wrote.
Workman also suggested the lawmakers may want to revise West Virginia's FOIA to clarify that the context in which such communications are made -- in this case, while an appeal involving Blankenship's company was pending -- is considered by agencies responding to records requests.
In the FOIA ruling, Chief Justice Brent Benjamin and Justices Menis Ketchum and Thomas McHugh signed on to Davis' majority opinion.
Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1702.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- State Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman said Wednesday that the public should have known about the frequent e-mail messages former Justice Spike Maynard was sending to Massey Energy President Don Blankenship.
Workman concluded that information about the e-mails would have made clear the close relationship between Blankenship, whose company was appealing a $50 million verdict against it, and Maynard, who had refused to recuse himself from that appeal.
In a dissenting opinion, Workman said the e-mail messages sought by The Associated Press were public records that should have been released under West Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.
"Put simply, when a judge or a justice communicates, via a record that is prepared, owned and retained by a public body, with a party litigant (or someone closely connected therewith) while that party's case is pending before that judge, such communication necessarily contains information that relates to that judge or justice's conduct of the public's business to the extent that it reveals the nature of the relationship between the two," Workman wrote.
Last week, the court voted 4-1 that 13 e-mail messages between Maynard and Blankenship did not have to be released under the state's public records law. Supreme Court Administrator Steve Canterbury had refused an AP request for those messages.
Justice Robin Davis, writing for the majority, said the e-mail messages were private -- rather than public -- records and not subject to West Virginia's FOIA.
In doing so, Davis cited two federal court rulings that defined the sorts of records that are "agency records" under federal law. One federal case allowed a National Labor Relations Board member to keep secret her e-mails and faxes seeking reappointment to the NLRB. The other allowed a Securities and Exchange Commission director to keep private his appointment calendar and other similar documents.
Workman noted in her dissent that the federal definition of "agency records" is much broader than West Virginia's definition of "public records." She said Davis, in relying on the federal definition, was "unhelpful and misleading" in deciding the Maynard case.
In addition, Workman said that Maynard should have disclosed the e-mail messages to Blankenship under the state's Code of Judicial Conduct, which aims to protect public confidence in the courts.
"To maintain the public confidence necessary to sustain the legitimacy of the judiciary, judges must disclose, when requested under FOIA, their communication with party litigants," Workman wrote.
Workman also suggested the lawmakers may want to revise West Virginia's FOIA to clarify that the context in which such communications are made -- in this case, while an appeal involving Blankenship's company was pending -- is considered by agencies responding to records requests.
In the FOIA ruling, Chief Justice Brent Benjamin and Justices Menis Ketchum and Thomas McHugh signed on to Davis' majority opinion.
Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...@wvgazette.com or 304-348-1702.
Post a comment
you are wrong, every public worker is held to these standards unless you the public worker who gets to decide if you held to these standards.
Wouldn't it be nice if all the agencies could make these decisions for themselves.