The House Judiciary Committee is continuing hearings to determine whether to recommend impeachment of one or more members of the West Virginia Supreme Court. Moment by moment, here’s what’s happening:
7:14 p.m. Scheduling notes!
Tomorrow delegates will get information about the cost and scope of Supreme Court office renovations. Plus some information about other issues such as working lunches.
Again, the committee won’t meet Saturday as it had earlier planned to do.
As for next week, the committee is getting some additional information from the Judicial Investigation Commission and needs time to go through it. Plus a couple of staffers will be out.
So the committee appears unlikely to meet at all next week. The *following week* will be the tour of the court, including media pool. That week is likely to begin Monday with a long day, continuing Tuesday. Follow that?
7:08 p.m. Chairman Shott says to former Administrator Canterbury: “All right you’re excused. We appreciate your endurance today.”
Canterbury did more than eight hours of testimony.
6:21 p.m. We’re back in. Chairman Shott says he should clarify “That was a working dinner. It was not paid for by the taxpayers. It was paid for by *a* taxpayer.” It was Mrs. Shott. She made fried chicken.
5:35 p.m. Dinner break. 45 minutes. Canterbury has been testifying since 1 pm without a break. I asked him earlier if he’d even been drinking the water that is supplied up on the witness table. He said no.
5:29 p.m. Delegate Rodney Miller, a Democrat and former Boone County sheriff, asks if Canterbury thinks justices believe the West Virginia Ethics Act applies to them.
Canterbury says he’s not sure justices would believe the West Virginia ethics act applies to them. They may contend they represent a different branch of government.
Miller then asks: “Do you think there is a general belief by members of the West Virginia Supreme Court that they are above the law?”
Canterbury: “No, they believe they say what the law is.”
Canterbury: “I don’t think they would ever believe they’re above the law. But I do think they do believe they say what the law is.”
5:13 p.m. Former Supreme Court Administrator Steve Canterbury, responding to staff counsel question, says Justice Davis wanted glass in her office to be “cool and icy.”
Staff counsel Kauffman: “Do you recall Justice Davis commenting that some people refer to her as an ice princess and so she wanted her office to be cool and icy?”
Canterbury: “Yes, that’s exactly what she said.”
5:05 p.m. “Holy cow,” House Judiciary Chairman John Shott says of the time.
Former Supreme Court Administrator Steve Canterbury has testified for seven hours already.
Shott suggests plowing ahead until 5:30 and then taking a dinner break.
Delegates are not eating dinner on the public dime, by the way. Sometimes Mrs. Shott has been preparing meals.
4:45 p.m. Chairman Shott says a question has been nagging at him: “In the 12 years between elections, to whom is a justice accountable?”
Former court administrator Steve Canterbury: “His or her own conscience.”
Canterbury: “People who get elected to justice have pretty big egos, and it’s pretty hard to change their behavior.”
He says sometimes peer pressure among justices can have an effect.
3:09 p.m. Chairman Shott notes we’ve gone another 2 and 1/2 hours this afternoon and asks if former Supreme Court Administrator Steve Canterbury needs a break. Canterbury says he’s here to serve the committee.
There are three more delegates left to ask followup questions. Typically, Chairman Shott has allowed two rounds of followups, so we still have Round 2 ahead.
Delegate John Overington, R-Berkeley, asks about the day he was fired: “I was angry, I was tired.”
Canterbury says he was receiving media calls and was considering what he might say in the moment about being fired — but he was also busy cleaning out his office.
Overington circled back to other sources of friction between Loughry and Canterbury. He referenced a harassment claim against Loughry when he was a clerk. “I don’t think he was honest,” Canterbury says.
Canterbury: “I think his character was not suitable for the bench.”
2:12 p.m. Delegate Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, brings up today’s word, “simulacrum” and asks what Canterbury meant when he used it to describe Justice Loughry.
“I think he’s dishonest. I don’t think he has the temperament to be a justice and I don’t think he has the temperament to be in charge of hiring people. I just found his whole tone to be off-putting, but I was respectful of the position.”
And more questions about the “Cass Gilbert desk” that wound up in Loughry’s home.
At the end of 2016, as Justice Beth Walker came on board, she needed a desk and the thought was to let her use the Cass Gilbert desk. But it couldn’t be found. “I was livid,” Canterbury says. “Goodness gracious. How can you lose one of these desks?”
Delegate Pushkin, D-Kanawha, asks about a Loughry claim that Canterbury told him he could take a desk home. Canterbury: “That’s just a barefaced lie. I had no idea he’d moved a desk.”
Also: questions about the expensive renovations of Supreme Court offices.
Delegate Sobonya asks “How did that $32,000 couch come to be?”
Canterbury says he really doesn’t know.
Canterbury says he had a discussion with Justice Davis about her chair and rugs and with Justice Workman about her floor: “Are you sure you still want it? This is pretty expensive.”
1:22 p.m. Delegate Rodney Miller, D-Boone, asks about Loughry’s history as a court employee. He came in as a clerk to then-Justice Maynard. Then when Justice Workman won the seat, she inherited his services. “They developed, apparently, a very close relationship,” says longtime court Administrator Steve Canterbury.
Miller asks if Cantebury and Loughry ever had any run-ins. Canterbury describes one “unfortunate incident.”
Canterbury says Loughry, as a clerk, was saying “sexually harassing things to a temporary employee of the administrative office.” Canterbury says he talked to Loughry and said it should stop. He also went to Justice Maynard, who was then Loughry’s boss.
He says the temporary employee was nearing the end of her time at the court and declined to press the matter farther.
“I figured it was water under the dam. I never brought it up. He never brought it up,” Canterbury says.
1:04 p.m. Asked for his history of taking the job as administrator, Canterbury says he was encouraged to apply by then-Justice Brent Benjamin, who called him several times. Canterbury had a long state government experience as the head of the state Regional Jail Authority.
He says then-Justice Maynard, a friend, said, “It’s kind of a miserable job.”
Canterbury says, “It’s very hard to work for five individuals and for the court itself. When the court is split 3-2, you do what the majority says but you sometimes upset the other two.”
He says, “When I arrived it was awful. There was no morale. It was like walking into a morgue. One of the things I wanted to do was let the employees know I was empowering them. They knew more about their jobs than I did.”
1 p.m. Now moving to questions by delegates. Up first is Delegate Phil Isner, D-Randolph.
Isner, asking about the day Canterbury was fired: “Did you say ‘I will destroy you’?”
Canterbury: “No, I’m not General MacArthur.”
12:57 p.m. Starting up again with questions of former Supreme Court Administrator Steve Canterbury.
He has been handed “Exhibit 39,” and asked to confirm whether it is a sketch by Justice Loughry of how he envisioned his renovated office. “Yes it is.”
Q: “What’s your understanding of the person who provided this sketch?”
Canterbury: “What’s my understanding? It was Justice Loughry.”
11:39 a.m. Staff counsel has concluded questions for Canterbury. Sounds like there will be a lunch break now until 12:45 with questions from delegates beginning then. Canterbury has testified 2 and 1/2 hours so far.
11:26 a.m. Questions turn to Canterbury’s termination Jan. 4, 2016. “How did you become aware your employment was being terminated?”
“I had heard through the grapevine that Justice Workman had turned strongly against me,” Canterbury says. He knew Loughry already didn’t like him.
He says he had a resignation letter ready in case he needed to resign by the end of 2015, to receive a possible pay out of annual leave. He was weighing that versus rumors he might be fired.
He says he sought assurances from then new-Justice Walker, who he believed had a good relationship with him. He was concerned she might be the third vote in favor of his termination. An email exchange led him to believe he would be OK.
About 10 a.m. that Feb. 4, he was summoned into a conference room. “Justice Loughry said ‘You’re being terminated from your will and pleasure position.’ Would you rather be terminated or would you rather resign?” Canterbury said he chose termination because of unemployment benefits.
Canterbury: “I practically begged them to keep me on.”
Canterbury: “They wanted me gone.”
Canterbury says he called Loughry a “Simulacrum in Chief,” which he tells delegates means “an elaborate fraud.” He says Loughry was puzzled by the phrase.
“I never threatened them,” Canterbury says. “I was under the gun to move my stuff. I remember saying something like ‘I don’t know whether to go to the press and tell them everything I know or just sail off into the sunset.'”
11:13 a.m. Canterbury has been asked about some hiring requests by Justice Margaret Workman.
“I don’t recall anyone else asking me to hire anybody,” he says of Workman.
In one case, he says, an employee wasn’t working out and Canterbury wanted to end the employment. He says Workman hinted that his own employment might be at risk.
“Justices are often looking for new administrators,” he says Workman told him.
10:55 a.m. I stepped out to describe this morning’s testimony on MetroNews’ “Talkline.” While I was out, there was some significant discussion of a multi-million dollar “spend-down” at the court.
Lacie Pierson of the Gazette-Mail describes:
Kauffman asking Canterbury about the court’s $29 million spend down of the court’s general excess revenue fund (like a Rainy Day Fund) between FY 2012 and 2016. He wrote a memo on Justice Workman’s request. He said Workman had wondered “where all the money went.”
— Lacie Pierson (@LaciePierson) July 26, 2018
Canterbury said two senators in 2011 were “just livid” about the amount of money in the fund, and there was talk about a constitutional amendment to let the legislature have more control over the court’s budget.
— Lacie Pierson (@LaciePierson) July 26, 2018
Canterbury said there had been some discussion about the amendment among justices, but he said it “came to a head” in 2011 in a Senate Finance Committee meeting because Senators were so upset about the money.
— Lacie Pierson (@LaciePierson) July 26, 2018
Canterbury said there was discussion among justices of doing things to keep certain senators from being so upset that the constitutional amendment proposal became a bill.
“They didn’t want the amendment. …I think they were all of a mind that they did not want that to happen.”— Lacie Pierson (@LaciePierson) July 26, 2018
Canterbury: “It became clear that over the next few years certain money would be spent…That would be absorbed by that surplus.”
He said some money was given back to the state’s general revenue fund.— Lacie Pierson (@LaciePierson) July 26, 2018
10:24 a.m. MetroNews’ “Talkline” continues to analyze the testimony surrounding impeachment. Here’s this morning’s take from lawyer Harvey Peyton:
MetroNews Legal Analyst, Harvey Peyton, joins @HoppyKercheval to discuss Steve Canterbury’s ongoing testimony in the WV State Supreme Court impeachment proceedings. WATCH: https://t.co/wkudfIAoe1 pic.twitter.com/7v5nKrabXj
— MetroNews (@WVMetroNews) July 26, 2018
10:21 a.m. Canterbury says in May 2014, Loughry asked for his resignation.
Canterbury says that situation had something to do with Loughry’s belief that Canterbury had called him young (inexperienced) and would learn more about the value of the drug court. But Canterbury says he doesn’t actually remember saying anything like that.
“He said I had disrespected him,” Canterbury says. “I did not resign. From that moment on, he would not speak to me. In fact, he sometimes referred to me in the third person when I was in the room.”
Canterbury says, “I kept thinking I could bring him around.”
Loughry had been a law clerk at the court for many years prior to being elected as a justice himself.
“The transformation in Justice Loughry’s character from when he was a law clerk to his being on the court was extraordinary,” Canterbury says.
Canterbury adds, “There would just be times when he’d rather be rather difficult. It’s hard to describe.”
10 a.m. Testimony now moves to the court renovations that kicked off a series of controversies within the past year. Canterbury notes that the renovations began in 2008.
Canterbury is asked about Justice Loughry’s claim that he had little involvement in the renovations of his own office.
“Daily, sometimes a couple of times a day, he would check in.”
“He would write emails, hundreds of emails. They were all around the clock.”
“He sketched out exactly how he wanted his office to look, and he wanted the medallion on the floor. He’d seen that somewhere and he thought it was cool.”
On the $32,000 couch. “Did you ever discuss the cost of that couch with Justice Loughry?” “Yes I did.”
Canterbury describes receiving an invoice.
“It seemed extreme to me so I went up to find him. I said, ‘This couch is $32,000. You want me to go through with this?’ He said, ‘If it ever becomes public, I’ll just blame it on you.'”
Canterbury: “His humor is interesting. It’s kind of insult humor. He has a self-satisfied chuckle.”
9:54 a.m. Now on the topic of home offices. Staff counsel Marsha Kauffman asks Canterbury if he remembers any policy saying justices could have a home office. “No,” he says.
“As so often happens, technology outpaced policy,” Canterbury adds. He says justices began with fax machines which then expanded to computers. Security concerns necessitated the computers being official state equipment.
Kauffman then brings up a couch formerly owned by Justice Albright that first was in Loughry’s office and then wound up in the Loughry household. Canterbury says: “Justice Loughry told me he thought he would take that couch home for his home office. My reaction was ‘what?'”
9:49 a.m. Several memos focusing on issues surrounding justices’ use of state vehicles have been brought up today. The exhibits below begin with one in which court security personnel discuss checking out state vehicles and whether justices were expected to state their destinations:
House Impeachment Exhibits 1 36 (1) (Text)
9:24 a.m. The early questions for former Supreme Court Administrator Steve Canterbury focus on the use of state vehicles.
A legislative audit from earlier this year concluded that two state Supreme Court justices drove state vehicles for personal use without properly claiming the perk as a taxable fringe benefit.
Justices Allen Loughry and Menis Ketchum also may have violated the state Ethics Act’s provision prohibiting the use of public office for private gain, the auditors wrote.
The auditors concluded that by 2016, the Supreme Court was clearly aware of the tax problem.
The auditors cited a July 21, 2016, memo written by a former administrative counsel for the court, informing then-administrator Canterbury. The memo was written at the request of Justice Robin Davis.
9:12 a.m. House Judiciary will not meet on Saturday because some items have been rescheduled. They *will* go into the evening today, House Judiciary Chairman Shott tells us.
Former Supreme Court administrator Steve Canterbury is sworn in. House Judiciary Chairman Shott politely makes a move in the interest of time to ask Canterbury to stick to the point as he answers today’s questions. Canterbury, as reporters know, can be chatty.
Canterbury is not accompanied by counsel today.
9:01 a.m. Earlier this week, the Judicial Investigation Commission cleared Justices Workman, Walker and Davis on ethics questions about working lunches.
House of Delegates officials have noted that all the concurrent investigations currently underway – the House impeachment proceedings, JIC investigations and federal grand jury and court proceedings – are separate and proceeding independently of one another, each with different burdens of proof and legal criteria defining their parameters.
While delegates can take notice of what the JIC has released, it does not necessarily have a direct effect on the House proceedings.
So, this is what House Judiciary Chairman John Shott, R-Mercer, shared with committee members yesterday regarding Monday’s JIC announcement:
“Yesterday’s press release by the WV Judicial Investigation Commission has raised questions regarding its effect upon the continuing investigation by the House Judiciary Committee. It is important to remember that each of the three investigations have different standards. The US Attorney’s office is focused on whether a federal crime has been committed, the JIC is focused on whether there has been a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and our Committee is focused on whether there is a Constitutional basis for impeachment. There may be some overlap in the conduct and the type of conduct being considered, but a finding by one does not necessarily bind the others.
“The JIC is also subject to a two-year statute of limitations, but our Committee is not. The JIC seemed to be most focused on whether the ‘working lunches’ violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. For our purposes, that issue involves two different components: whether public funds were used to pay for the Justice’s working lunches and whether the cost of those lunches were excessive. It appears that the JIC did not address the second component. My best recollection of my conversation with JIC counsel was that JIC was not considering excessive spending because that conduct, in and of itself, was not a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, for our purposes, excessive spending on the lunches (i.e. instead of ordering from the Capitol cafeteria or Wendy’s, lunches were ordered from the some of the higher priced restaurants in town) could be an example of a pattern of excessive spending of the Court and a cavalier indifference to the spending of taxpayer money.
“The timing of the JIC’s ‘unusual step’ in issuing its press release and closing letters have caused some speculation regarding its motives. I prefer to believe that the JIC’s motivation was to permit our Committee to have access to the information it developed during its investigation. As you may recall, proceedings of the Judicial Investigation Commission are confidential unless they result in an admonishment or formal statement of charges. However, now that the JIC’s investigation of the complaints is closed, and the JIC has decided to make the information that it conducted an investigation public, I have instructed our staff counsel to issue a subpoena for that material. It could eliminate the need for us to investigate some allegations further, or it could suggest other materials and/or witnesses we need to develop.” – House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Shott, R-Mercer.
8:45 a.m. The House’s sergeant-at-arms is working to serve a subpoena to Scott Young, the owner of Young’s Moving Service, which was involved in the moving of furniture at Justice Allen Loughry’s home.
It’s possible he might testify Friday. Also potentially on Friday, the Committee might introduce and review documents associated with the renovation of Supreme Court offices.
8:40 a.m. The House Judiciary Committee has intended to subpoena Justice Allen Loughry’s wife, Kelly, to testify on Friday.
Mrs. Loughry has been served the subpoena, House officials said, but she has asked for a delay so that she may retain an attorney prior to testifying. As has been done with other witnesses who have retained counsel, the Committee will accommodate this request, so she will likely not be testifying this week.
This issue came up yesterday as Justice Loughry was pleading not guilty to another federal charge — separate from the impeachment hearings.
Loughry’s attorney, John Carr, asked federal prosecutors and Magistrate Judge Dwane Tinsley if Mrs. Loughry would be called as a federal witness, concerned about a stipulation that Loughry not interact with witnesses.
The federal prosecutors said there is no current intention to call Mrs. Loughry as a witness regarding the federal charges and so there would be no stipulation against Loughry speaking with his own wife.
8:26 a.m. Former Supreme Court Administrator Steve Canterbury is on the witness stand today, the biggest name so far with a key perspective in the impeachment proceedings that are now on their third week.
Canterbury’s testimony is expected to take all day Thursday and perhaps part of the next day. He was at odds with former Chief Justice Allen Loughry, with the justice blaming Canterbury for decisions that led to controversial spending by the court.
At one point, Loughry said he took his concerns to federal investigators. It was Loughry who wound up facing a 23-count federal indictment.
“He is in the middle of everything, all the testimony, so that could very well consume a day,” House Judiciary Chairman John Shott said at the end of last week.
Canterbury has been mentioned many times during testimony to this point. He was fired in early January, 2017 — right after Loughry became chief justice.
Deputy Director Jess Gundy testified last week that he escorted Canterbury out of the court the day he was fired.
Gundy recalled Canterbury saying, “I don’t know whether I just want to ride off into the sunset or whether I’m going to contact the press and tell them everything.”
Former court spokeswoman Jennifer Bundy was asked last week on the witness stand if court employees had any contact with Justice Loughry about Canterbury’s firing as court administrator.
Bundy said she told Loughry, “I consider Steve a personal friend, and I intend to continue to talk to him.”
“He just said ‘OK,’” Bundy said of Loughry.
“Over time, he would say ‘I know Steve is your friend, but how can you continue to be friends with someone who says this or that?’”
Another court employee, Kimberly Ellis, testified via sworn affidavit that the evening following Canterbury’s firing, she received a call on her cell phone from Justice Loughry, who asked to keep the conversation off the record.
“He informed me that he had fired Steve Canterbury,” Ellis testified. “He also said it was his understanding that I was a spy or loyal to Steve Canterbury, but I had nothing to worry about because they liked me. I felt like this was a threat and feared for my employment with the Court.”