Workman issues dissent in Maynard-Blankenship case
Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman today issued her dissent to the court’s decision last week to block release of e-mails sent by former Justice Spike Maynard to Massey Energy President Don Blankenship.
The dissent is posted here and the majority opinion in this 4-1 case is here.
Workman’s main point is spelled out pretty clear this way:
In the case at hand, a Justice sitting on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals communicated by e-mail on a somewhat regular basis with a friend who was the Chairman and CEO of a party litigant with a case pending before the Court. With one exception, the literal content of those e-mails did not contain information relating to the conduct of public business.
The fact that those e-mails had been sent, however, did contain relevant information.
First and foremost, it discloses the existence of a personal relationship between a sitting Justice and a CEO of a party litigant. In addition, when the AP made its first FOIA request, a motion filed by the Plaintiffs in Caperton seeking Justice Maynard’s recusal from that case was pending, the basis of which was his personal relationship with Mr. Blankenship.
The fact that the e-mails were sent, albeit on issues unrelated to matters pending before this court, is clearly relevant to the relationship between Justice Maynard and Mr. Blankenship.
Because that relationship was the basis of a motion for recusal, the relationship was itself related to Justice Maynard’s conduct of the public’s business.
More generally, Workman explains:
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 business to the extent that it reveals the nature of the relationship between the two.
3 comments
I’m amazed there was even one dissent. Seriously, the Justices are asked to decide whether their own emails should be considered public or private, and we should be shocked that they vote for their self-inerest?
I’m glad to see that at least Justice Workman cares more about clarity and openness in the judicial system. The Ole’ Menis Ketchup man from Huntington has definitely dissapointed me with his decision in this case to the point that I wish I hadn’t voted for him.
Congratulations to Justice Workman for saying what is fair and just in this matter. No one cares what someone’s dinner menu might be or their doctor’s appointments as the majority opinion seems to try and shift the focus on whether there was a relationship between Maynard and Blankenship. Quite frankly, Justice Davis should have recused herself since she and Benjamin, who is Blankenship’s appointment to the court, is closely associated with her and attends numerous social and fundraising events at her home.
The mere fact that the public perceived that there was something inappropriate in this whole matter would have dictated that the court take a closer look at the law anddecide otherwise. To protect their future interests is just wrong.
Leave a Comment