CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The state Supreme Court objects to the scope of impeachment proceedings in the Legislature.
Delegates received a firm letter from the Supreme Court’s interim administrator.
“In short,” it says, “a full-fledged fishing expedition is now underway before a Committee whose members perform multiple functions: they are prosecutors, making such allegations as they deem appropriate; they are judges deciding on the relevance and materiality of the evidence for themselves and determining the standard of proof they deem sufficient; and they are jurors, deciding on whether their own charges have been established by their own evidence to their own satisfaction.”
Much of the letter seems to be responding to one or more subpoena requests. The beginning notes that the court has already cooperated with a variety of investigations, including on the state and federal level, and to FOIA requests by reporters.
“For this reason, we question the Committee’s need to acquire additional information from the Court, unless it is information not previously provided to other entities and obtainable from them,” the letter states.
“This includes further questioning of Court employees who have been questioned by your Auditor and Commission, some on more than one occasion. None of these employees are alleged to have committed any wrongdoing, and several have expressed nervousness and reluctance at the prospect of undergoing additional questioning by your members about anything and everything while being live-streamed to the world.”
Delegates have received a firmly worded letter from the Supreme Court, objecting to scope of impeachment proceedings pic.twitter.com/bbyuyrGHMY
— Brad McElhinny (@BradMcElhinny) July 13, 2018
House Judiciary Chairman John Shott, responding to reporters, said the Supreme Court has a constitutional duty to cooperate with the hearings taking place at the Capitol.
“The only response I have to that is each of the justices took an oath to uphold the Constitution,” Shott said. “The constitution provides a process for impeachment, and that process was triggered by the resolution of the House of Delegates. We’re following up on our constitutional duty to do so.
“Because the justices uphold the Constitution, I expect they will honor their duty and provide whatever cooperation we need.”
That all took place behind the scenes on Friday, the second day of impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee.
The House Judiciary Committee is considering whether to recommend the impeachment of Justice Allen Loughry, who already faces a 22 federal charges, or any other members of the state Supreme Court.
The state Constitution lays out the grounds for impeachment but only in the broadest terms: “Any officer of the state may be impeached for maladministration, corruption, incompetency, gross immorality, neglect of duty, or any high crime or misdemeanor.”
The House of Delegates is the body that presents articles of impeachment and then the state Senate acts as a jury.
The Judiciary Committee, which will be making recommendations to the full House, spent the final two days of this week gathering witness testimony and will reconvene late next week.
For several hours Friday morning, delegates heard from the Supreme Court’s former technology director who said he was sometimes intimidated or threatened with firing over the work he was asked to do.
Scott Harvey, the former Supreme Court IT chief, was on a team of technicians who installed computer equipment in Justice Loughry’s home.
Justices had state-issued computers and networks in their homes, but Loughry’s went beyond the norm.
He had two desktops and a laptop that were court property. One of the desktops was mostly used for storing family photographs and playing games, according to a statement of charges issued last month by the state Judicial Investigations Commission.
Harvey said he felt pressure to help the Loughrys with their computer setup. “Fear basically tells you to do the job or suffer the consequences.”
Delegate Barbara Fleischauer, D-Monongalia, asked what made Harvey feel that way. “What was it that made you question your personal beliefs?”
Harvey responded, “To allow a family member to use a computer.”
The technology director said he had other uncomfortable experiences at the Supreme Court, too.
In one case, he told the Judiciary Committee he was pressured to hire a tech consultant who had previously worked on Justice Margaret Workman’s campaign. Harvey said former Supreme Court Administrator Steve Canterbury told him he had to hire the tech consultant.
And he also said he was threatened with a firing if he couldn’t get the state Treasurer to sign off on a cash-flow change for a project. This was for a system for the public to purchase magistrate court information online. The payments normally would have flowed through the Treasurer’s Office, but court officials wanted to receive the money directly.
He told delegates that Justice Menis Ketchum, who announced his retirement this week, threatened to fire him.
“That’s pretty heavy-handed,” said Delegate Rodney Miller, D-Boone.
In yet another instance, Harvey said he was asked to use a federal grant for something other than its intended purposes, and he refused.
He said the grant was meant to set up video communication at various locations for the public.He was asked to use the purchased video equipment to replace broken equipment in magistrate courts or family courts.
“We had a video unit down and instead of waiting to order those, we would take these that were already purchased and move them to that location,” he said.
Delegate Tom Fast, R-Fayette, asked who put that pressure on him. “Yes, it was administrator Johnson,” Harvey said, referring to Supreme Court Administrator Gary Johnson, who left last month.
“Did this cause a rift?” Fast asked.
“It felt like it did,” Harvey said.