Breaking news: Rulings in Massey, AP FOIA cases
West Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Massey Energy in the big Harman Mining case and — in a politically related case — refused to force the release of e-mail messages between Massey Energy President Don Blankenship and former Justice Spike Maynard.
The ruling in Harman Mining is here, and the ruling in the Associated Press Freedom of Information Act case is here.
Updated, 5 p.m.:
Here’s a link to my buddy Paul Nyden’s news story.
11 comments
The rule of law triumphs (again). Of course, the enviros will once again scream the whole thing was fixed.
Shane Harvey, general counsel for Massey, issued the following statement on the Harman Mining case:
We have always stated that the West Virginia Supreme Court’s initial decision in favor of Massey was correct, the essential facts in this case have not changed, and no legal arguments were presented by our opponent that would have merited reversal. The Court’s decision represents a total vindication of Massey Energy’s longstanding legal position. We are pleased that this decision today brings this lengthy legal proceeding to an appropriate close.
Ken.
With the Supreme Court issuing this fair and just decision, WV will make a gain in the business climate. A business climate that is badly in need of improvement. A business climate that must improve to increase economic development that will in turn help the economic and personal well being of the citizens. There is much more to be done but the WV Supreme Court has been swinging in the appropriate direction in 2009. The citizens will reap the rewards of good election choices.
OK, Casey,
Explain exactly how this ruling improves the business climate in West Virginia … I’m not saying it doesn’t. But you don’t offer any explanation for exactly how that works in this instance.
Ken.
Readers, I’m posting below the AP dispatch by Tom Breen, which does a very fine job of pointing out that Justice Davis did not accurately describe the e-mails that were released previously in this case. Ken.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — The state Supreme Court has ruled that public officials and public employees can keep their personal e-mails secret.
The court ruled 4-1 Thursday that none of the 13 e-mails between former Supreme Court Chief Justice Elliott “Spike” Maynard and Massey Energy Chief Executive Don Blankenship are public records. The Associated Press had sued to gain access to the correspondence last year, when Massey had several cases pending before the high court.
Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge Duke Bloom ruled that five of the e-mails were public, but that eight were not. Bloom reasoned that the five e-mails were public records because they touched on Maynard’s ultimately unsuccessful campaign in the Democratic primary, in which he ran against two of the justices now sitting on the court. The five e-mails were released after that ruling.
But the Supreme Court ruled that Bloom was wrong to release those e-mails, and sent the case back to his court. Justice Margaret Workman was the lone dissenter.
“Of course we’re disappointed in the court’s cramped view of a statute which by its own terms is supposed to be ‘liberally construed’,” said David Tomlin, the AP’s Associate General Counsel.
In writing for the majority, Justice Robin Davis said “None of the e-mails’ contents involved the official duties, responsibilities or obligations of Justice Maynard as a duly-elected member of the court.”
Davis’ opinion says that 12 of the e-mails “simply provided URL links to privately-operated Internet Web sites that carried news articles,” while the 13th was an “agenda for a meeting being held by a private organization.”
This description is not accurate. Of the five e-mails released by Bloom’s order, two contained links not to news articles, but to pages on the Web site of a Huntington law firm, along with comments Maynard wrote about the firm.
One e-mail mocked the firm’s advertisements as “unbelievable,” while another slammed the firm for claiming that a fire at Massey’s Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 that killed two miners could have been prevented.
The firm in question was that of Menis Ketchum, who was named in both e-mails. Ketchem was challenging Maynard in the Democratic primary at the time and voted with the majority in Thursday’s ruling.
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.
Davis, however, rejected Court Administrator Steve Canterbury’s argument that the judicial branches’ records were exempt from FOIA.
The ruling says that 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 says that public interest in a particular case — like the relationship between Maynard and Blankenship — can’t be used to make that determination.
“In AP’s opinion there can be no such thing as a ‘purely personal’ communication between a powerful business and political figure and the state’s chief justice who also just happens to be presiding over that powerful figure’s case,” Tomlin said.
Davis wrote that in order for the AP’s argument to be viable, the Legislature would have to change the definition of a public record to include taking the record’s context into account.
Canterbury said the opinion speaks for itself.
“The judges give up so many of their rights to free expression in public anyway, that this form of communication needs to be a little less bridled,” he said.
As of early last month, the state had spent $54,552 on the case.
[…] Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette - » Breaking news: Rulings in Massey, AP FOIA cases blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/11/12/breaking-news-rulings-in-harman-ap-foia-cases – view page – cached West Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Massey Energy in the big Harman Mining case and — in a politically related case — refused to force the release of e-mail messages between… Read moreWest Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Massey Energy in the big Harman Mining case and — in a politically related case — refused to force the release of e-mail messages between Massey Energy President Don Blankenship and former Justice Spike Maynard. Read less […]
Ken I’m no legal expert but the terrible rating by Forbes for WV as the worst or at least one of the worst states to do business in (depending on the year of the rankings), reflected in part that WV was tort-hell. WV has been a lawsuit destination for plaintiff lawyers. For example, McGraw had a reputation of ruling in the plaintiff’s favor an unbelievable percentage of the time. Now since the last election The Court has been more moderate and this change is important to the welfare of the citizens in my opinion. And for the Court to remove Benjamin from the decision and still confirm the previous decision (only one dissent), tells me that WV is making great strides forward, especially in a decision involving a company ran by a CEO whom has been a political lightning rod.
I think companies and investors look at these types of rulings and make decisions on their business which affect employment, opportunity and economic well-being of the citizens. But that’s just my opinion.
why do the courts always rule in favor of massy right or wrong. The umwa never had a chance against Massy and the court system too.
[…] the rest here: Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette – » Breaking news: Rulings in … Tags: ap-foia-cases, business, congress, corrections, court, history, opinion, supreme, […]
Fred,
You should be careful throwing around words like “always” and “never.”
Don’t forget that the WV Supreme Court refused to consider Massey’s appeal of a verdict against it in a coal contract case brought by Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel:
http://statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=47721
Or, that the courts have ruled for the UMWA (so far) in their suit over the Mammoth Mine:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/10/02/nlrb-to-massey-rehire-union-mine-workers/
Casey,
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. This was not your typical sort of “tort hell” case that WV is so often criticized over. This was business vs. business. Small operator vs. big operator, to be specific — so perhaps the lesson is that big business wins over small business in West Virginia?
Perhaps in your zeal to be pro-coal and pro-business, you are ignoring the underlying facts here.
Ken.
Great work Ken. Your facts are always straight and to the point whether they be pro-coal or anti-coal.
I don’t quite understand what Casey means when he said, “that WV is making great strides forward, especially in a decision involving a company run by a CEO (I presume he means Mr. Blankenship) whom has been a political lightning rod.” Yikes!!
Leave a Comment