AP asks W.Va. Supreme Court to rehear Maynard FOIA case
The Associated Press has asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider a November ruling that declared a former justice's e-mails to a coal company executive were not subject to West Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The Associated Press has asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider a November ruling that declared a former justice's e-mails to a coal company executive were not subject to West Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.
The rehearing request, filed late Monday, argues that if the 4-1 ruling is allowed to stand, it could serve as a way for "hundreds of thousands of records previously disclosed under the Act to be concealed from the public."
The Nov. 12 decision overturned a lower court ruling that said five of 13 e-mails between former Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard and Massey Energy chief Don Blankenship were public records because they touched on Maynard's ultimately unsuccessful 2008 Democratic primary campaign. Maynard ran against two of the justices now sitting on the court. The five e-mails were released after that ruling.
But in an opinion written by Justice Robin Davis, the court said Kanawha County Circuit Judge Duke Bloom was wrong to release those e-mails, and sent the case back to his court. Justice Margaret Workman was the lone dissenter.
The crux of the court's reasoning was that none of the e-mails were public records as defined under the state's Freedom of Information Act.
"We conclude that not one of the 13 e-mails was related in any manner to either the conduct of the public business, or to the official duties, responsibilities or obligations of the particular public body, which was, in this instance, Justice Maynard," Davis wrote.
The ruling said content is the only factor that determines whether a personal e-mail sent by any "public official or employee" is a public record under state law. Davis said public interest in a particular case -- like the relationship between Maynard and Blankenship -- can't be used to make that determination.
Davis said the Legislature would have to change the state's FOIA law to include taking a record's context into account when deciding if it should be released.
In its petition, the AP said the court should reverse its opinion and rehear the case because the Legislature has held that West Virginia's FOIA law should be liberally applied.
"The dreadful message sent by this Court's opinion is that questions about a judge's impartiality are none of the public's business," the AP said in its filing. "To suggest that such records are none of the public's business is not just wrong factually and legally, it is bad public policy."
The court is in recess until January and no immediate action was taken on the request. Court Administrator Steve Canterbury said Tuesday he had not read the AP's request and could not comment.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The Associated Press has asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider a November ruling that declared a former justice's e-mails to a coal company executive were not subject to West Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.
The rehearing request, filed late Monday, argues that if the 4-1 ruling is allowed to stand, it could serve as a way for "hundreds of thousands of records previously disclosed under the Act to be concealed from the public."
The Nov. 12 decision overturned a lower court ruling that said five of 13 e-mails between former Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard and Massey Energy chief Don Blankenship were public records because they touched on Maynard's ultimately unsuccessful 2008 Democratic primary campaign. Maynard ran against two of the justices now sitting on the court. The five e-mails were released after that ruling.
But in an opinion written by Justice Robin Davis, the court said Kanawha County Circuit Judge Duke Bloom was wrong to release those e-mails, and sent the case back to his court. Justice Margaret Workman was the lone dissenter.
The crux of the court's reasoning was that none of the e-mails were public records as defined under the state's Freedom of Information Act.
"We conclude that not one of the 13 e-mails was related in any manner to either the conduct of the public business, or to the official duties, responsibilities or obligations of the particular public body, which was, in this instance, Justice Maynard," Davis wrote.
The ruling said content is the only factor that determines whether a personal e-mail sent by any "public official or employee" is a public record under state law. Davis said public interest in a particular case -- like the relationship between Maynard and Blankenship -- can't be used to make that determination.
Davis said the Legislature would have to change the state's FOIA law to include taking a record's context into account when deciding if it should be released.
In its petition, the AP said the court should reverse its opinion and rehear the case because the Legislature has held that West Virginia's FOIA law should be liberally applied.
"The dreadful message sent by this Court's opinion is that questions about a judge's impartiality are none of the public's business," the AP said in its filing. "To suggest that such records are none of the public's business is not just wrong factually and legally, it is bad public policy."
The court is in recess until January and no immediate action was taken on the request. Court Administrator Steve Canterbury said Tuesday he had not read the AP's request and could not comment.
Post a comment