G-FYI™: Most Popular Baby Names for 2012

Top baby names for girls in 2012
1. Sophia
2. Emma
3. Isabella
4. Olivia
5. Ava
6. Emily
7. Abigail
8. Mia
9. Madison
10. Elizabeth
———

Top baby names for boys
1. Jacob
2. Mason
3. Ethan
4. Noah
5. William
6. Liam
7. Jayden
8. Michael
9. Alexander
10. Aiden
———

Fastest-rising baby names for girls in 2012
1. Arya
2. Perla
3. Catalina
4. Elisa
5. Raelynn
6. Rosalie
7. Haven
8. Raelyn
9. Briella
10. Marilyn
———

Fastest-rising names for boys
1. Major
2. Gael
3. Jase
4. Messiah
5. Brantley
6. Iker
7. King
8. Rory
9. Ari
10. Maverick
———

~~  Source: Social Security Administration ~~

G-FYI™: Who Is Auditing The State’s Screw Ups? They Knew Better, Didn’t They?

The public should know this incident happened on April 18, 2013 at Sand Fork Elementary School in Gilmer County, WV. The school system is under state control with Ron Blankenship as state appointed superintendent.

The following is part of INTERCEPTED LETTERS, enough to show you how the Gilmer County Schools are run by Mr. Blankenship who is known to say “I am not aware of it”, “Everything is under Control”, and “this type of decisions are above my pay grade.”

Gilmer County Board of Health
Carl E. Nichols, M.D., Health Officer
809 Medical Drive Suite #3
Glenville, WV 26351

April 23, 2013
Ms. Marian Swinker, Commissioner for Public Health
Bureau for Public Health
350 Capital Street, 7th Floor
Charleston, WV 25301

Re: Written Statement—- Water outage at Sand Fork Elementary School in Gilmer County

Dear Dr. Swinker;

Here is the Written Statement you requested. The Health Department staff and myself worked together to get it wrote up correctly.

We first received a call from Gilmer PSD around 8:20 AM stating that the water was turned off at Sand Fork area due to a water line break. Around that same time, Carol Beam, Administrator, faxed to the Board of Education and to Sand Fork Elementary School a copy of the Environmental Health Procedure Manual section: Drinking Water, Procedure # DW-18 {2 pages).

Around 10:15 received the second call from PSD saying "all pressure has been released."

Around 10:30 AM we started receiving calls from the staff at Sand Fork Elementary School regarding the unsanitary conditions. "No way to wash our hands, no way to flush the toilets, some children are gagging from the foul odors." We got other calls from parents complaining also.

After discussing the complaints with the Administrator, Carol Beam, she called Superintendent Ron Blankenship to discuss the problem. Mr. Blankenship told her everything was under control. They had gotten some drinking water and the Fire Department was bringing water to flush the toilets. Mr. Blankenship was then informed by Ms. Beam that the Health Officer and the Public Health Nurse were going to make a site visit to the school to evaluate what was going on. Mr. Blankenship then informed Ms. Beam that "that was not necessary, but do whatever you want to do".

As we were leaving to go to the school, we received another call from (does not want name mentioned, for fear of losing job), who stated that they were in the process of flushing the toilets with the fire department water hose, there was too much pressure and feces, urine, toilet paper and water went everywhere, in the bathroom floor and into the hallway.

As the Public Health Nurse and I arrived on scene [Sand Fork Elementary School], it appeared they were cleaning up the floor with water the fire department had brought.

Upon some further investigation, myself and the public Health Nurse come to the conclusion that it was not safe for children or staff to be there at this time, due to unhealthy and unsanitary conditions.

Mrs. Radabaugh, Acting Principal was informed that the school needed to be closed until repairs could be made and the place properly cleaned and sanitized.

I then called Mike Pickens, State Board of Education to update him on his findings and recommendations, as he requested I do.

Mr. Pickens agreed with my action to close the school till repairs were done and the place was cleaned and sanitized properly. Mr. Pickens stated that his office backed me 100%.

Called Mr. Blankenship [Gilmer County Superintendent of Schools] by telephone, his extension, no answer, left a message on his voice mail informing of my Actions and my conversation, and of the State Board of Education's Approval to shut down Sand Fork Elementary School till repairs were done and it was properly cleaned, sanitized and inspected.

Received a phone call from a school employee stating they just received a phone call from the BOE secretary with a message from Mr. Blankenship that “school will not close until regular closing time.”

I then called Mr. Pickens, State Board of Education office and updated him as to Mr. Blankenship's' behavior, that Mr. Blankenship was defiling my Order to close the school. And he was keeping the school open till normal closing hour. This action was placing the students and staff at risk of infection. The contaminated area had not been cleansed or sanitized properly. Mr. Pickens stated he would have to report this to his superior, Mr. Heinland, who in turn would call Mr. Blankenship and resolve this issue. He would call me if any problems or questions arose.

I received no further calls from Mr. Pickens or Mr. Heiland.

Friday morning I found out that school was not shut down, and it remained open as usual. I heard nothing back from Mr. Pickens or from Mr. Heiland. Therefore I assumed the problem was taken care of on Thursday.

I also called Gene Johnson, Board of Health President to make him aware of what was going on. I attempted to call BOE office—- no answer.

Amy Atkins, Division of Local Health Director, was contacted at this time. She will investigate this matter and get back in touch with me.

Carol Beam, GCHD [Gilmer County Health Department] Administrator called Chief Sanitarian, Penny Mangold of Fairmont District Office, to come and do an inspection before Monday. She did come down on Friday and did the inspection. She will send me a report as soon as she gets all information put together.

The Health Department received a phone call around 10:15 on Friday, April 19th from the Gilmer PSD stating "the boil water advisory had been lifted.

On Tuesday, April 23, I received a phone call from Amy Atkins, Director of Local Health. She had spoken with you regarding all of the above. She stated to me that everything was handled correctly and that I did have the authority to shut the school down. The BOE does not have a Health Officer; therefore they must follow the county Health Officer’s recommendations.

I hope I did not overstep my boundaries. I did what I felt was best for the children and staff at the school. lf there was something handled incorrectly, please let me know. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Carl E. Nichols, M.D.
Gilmer County Bd. Of Health Officer

cc: Gilmer County Board of Health
Gilmer county BOE members
Amy Atkins, Director of Local Health
Mike Pickens, State BOE

 

 

Click H E R E to See the Printable Intercepted Letters

Finally, the following is a quote from WV State Superintendent of Schools:

“...I do know that county boards of education or superintendents do not have the authority to refute an order from a public health officer. “

James B. Phares

G-FYI™: What Is Adderall

Adderall is abused mostly by college students and young adults.

Estimates are that somewhere between 20-30% of college students regularly abuse Adderall.

Adderall has the dubious distinction of being the latest addition to the rogue’s gallery of lawful drugs that have made the transition to the black market.

In recent years, abuse of Adderall and its imitators has increased by nearly 200%.

Calling it an “upper” is like calling a hydrogen bomb a grenade.

It is made of pure amphetamine, it is already picked up its share of street monikers: Speed, Beans, Black Beauties, Christmas Trees, and Double Trouble, amongst others.

What are the pluses in this wonder-drug?

In ordinary people it often but not always offers increased concentration. It also keeps people awake for more studying and lots more partying. It often offers a sense of euphoria and happiness and a lot better and more frequent sex, all fun at parties.

What do you think of Adderall?

IRS Plans January 30, 2013 Tax Season Opening For 1040 Filers

Following the January tax law changes made by Congress under the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA), the Internal Revenue Service announced today it plans to open the 2013 filing season and begin processing individual income tax returns on January 30.

The IRS will begin accepting tax returns on that date after updating forms and completing programming and testing of its processing systems. This will reflect the bulk of the late tax law changes enacted January 02. The announcement means that the vast majority of tax filers — more than 120 million households — should be able to start filing tax returns starting Jan 30.

The IRS estimates that remaining households will be able to start filing in late February or into March because of the need for more extensive form and processing systems changes. This group includes people claiming residential energy credits, depreciation of property or general business credits. Most of those in this group file more complex tax returns and typically file closer to the April 15 deadline or obtain an extension.

“We have worked hard to open tax season as soon as possible,” IRS Acting Commissioner Steven T. Miller said. “This date ensures we have the time we need to update and test our processing systems.”

The IRS will not process paper tax returns before the anticipated January 30 opening date. There is no advantage to filing on paper before the opening date, and taxpayers will receive their tax refunds much faster by using e-file with direct deposit.

“The best option for taxpayers is to file electronically,” Miller said.

The opening of the filing season follows passage by Congress of an extensive set of tax changes in ATRA on January 01, 2013, with many affecting tax returns for 2012. While the IRS worked to anticipate the late tax law changes as much as possible, the final law required that the IRS update forms and instructions as well as make critical processing system adjustments before it can begin accepting tax returns.

The IRS originally planned to open electronic filing this year on January 22; more than 80% of taxpayers filed electronically last year.

Who Can File Starting January 30?

The IRS anticipates that the vast majority of all taxpayers can file starting January 30, regardless of whether they file electronically or on paper. The IRS will be able to accept tax returns affected by the late Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch as well as the three major “extender” provisions for people claiming the state and local sales tax deduction, higher education tuition and fees deduction and educator expenses deduction.

Who Can’t File Until Later?

There are several forms affected by the late legislation that require more extensive programming and testing of IRS systems. The IRS hopes to begin accepting tax returns including these tax forms between late February and into March; a specific date will be announced in the near future.

The key forms that require more extensive programming changes include Form 5695 (Residential Energy Credits), Form 4562 (Depreciation and Amortization) and Form 3800 (General Business Credit). A full listing of the forms that won’t be accepted until later is available on IRS.gov.

As part of this effort, the IRS will be working closely with the tax software industry and tax professional community to minimize delays and ensure as smooth a tax season as possible under the circumstances.

Updated information will be posted on IRS.gov.

~~ Information Provided by Flynn Tax Service in Glenville, WV ~~

Daily G-Eye™: 12.04.12

Tally the dog saves three tiger cubs at the Sochi Zoo
after they were abandoned by their birth mother.

Submit photos for this daily feature. You may select to have your name listed as well.
Send your photo(s) to “tellus@gilmerfreepress.net”

G-FYI™: Gilmer County Excess Levy and School Supplies

On November 06, 2012 the voters of Gilmer County will be asked to renew an excess levy which supports many vital aspects of Gilmer County School Programs.  The levy has been in existence since 1991 and it supports repair and maintenance of facilities, custodial supplies and equipment/ utility costs, maintenance contracts on equipment.  Additionally, it provides supplies, textbooks, workbooks, fine arts, technology, library, vocational program and the 4-H program.  Finally, it supplements and supports transportation for secondary extracurricular programs, band program, and elementary program extracurricular, professional development and substitutes.  All in all the excess levy provides nearly one million dollars of support for our public school system.

While it is not the intent to break down all the expenditures in detail here, it is noteworthy that the levy provided $243,500 for textbooks and instructional supplies in the past year.  Instruction is the primary purpose of an educational program and it is essential that the tools for teaching and learning are available and sufficient.  As of now, the excess levy makes certain that students have the textbooks and supplies needed without direct cost to them or their families.

An example of the book costs for students in grades three through six works out to an average of 335.93 per student.  At the seventh through twelfth levels the averages are as follows: 7th - $521.04, 8th - $530.53, 9th - $559.97, 10th - $559.91, 11th - $573.39, 12th - $747.71.  Some books are at least $100.00 apiece.  Without the excess levy and the support it gives families will likely have to pay for the textbooks their children need which will pose a great financial hardship for many.

Additional information will be forthcoming on the impact on sports and other extracurricular activities in the near future.  You are encouraged to attend the public meetings on renewal of the excess levy at Sand Fork on October 18, Glenville Elementary on October 25 and Gilmer County High School on November 01, 2012.  All meetings are at 6:00 in the evening.

CommunityImprovements™: All-way Stop Control It Is

The Gilmer Free Press has learned that The West Virginia Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Division conducted a traffic study at the intersection of U.S. Highway 33/119 (North Lewis Street) and WV Highway 5 (Burnsville Road) at Hays City in Glenville, WV.

The evaluation was conducted using the methodology specified by the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and has been legally adopted by the DOH as the official standard for the use of traffic control devices in West Virginia. The primary criterion for the installation of a traffic signal as outlined in the MUTCD is intersection traffic volume.  Abiding by the MUTCD ensures that traffic signals are installed where they are truly needed and allows state Departments of Transportation to prioritize projects so that transportation funds can be expended where they are most needed.  Additionally, the traffic study included a review of crash history and a physical review of the intersection.

Based upon a review of the collected data, it was determined that the traffic volume at the intersection of U.S. Highway 33 / U.S. Highway 119 with WV Highway 5 would meet the minimum warranting criteria for the installation of a traffic signal.

The study also shows that the intersection volume would also meet the minimum criteria for the installation of an all-way stop control.

The study showed that the intersection crash rate is not elevated compared to the statewide average for similar intersections.

Observation of traffic operation and computer modeling using the actual volumes indicate the intersection currently operates at a fair level of service without significant congestion most of the day, with the exception being short durations during the peak hours.

Traffic signals tend to increase the occurrence of rear end crashes, increase delay for mainline traffic, and increase fuel usage and vehicle emissions.

The DOH typically employs traffic signals at locations where the volume is significant or where there is an angle crash problem correctable by signalization.

As part of the traffic review, WVDOH also considered the construction of a roundabout to control traffic at the intersection. A roundabout is a type of circular intersection or traffic circle, a junction in which roadway traffic flows in one direction around a central island.  In a roundabout, entering traffic must always yield to traffic already within the circle.  Roundabouts have been shown to be very effective at reducing intersections crashes and can operate more efficiently than traffic signals in many instances.  They are rapidly growing in number throughout the United States and are advocated by the FHWA, and the DOH is beginning to implement roundabouts in West Virginia.  The study shows that a roundabout would operate well at the intersection of U.S. Highway 33 / U.S. Highway 119 with WV Highway 5 and would appear to be very constructible considering the geometry of the intersection.  A roundabout would reduce congestion of the WV Highway 5 approach, maintain a good level of service on the U.S. Highway 33 / U.S. Highway 119 approach, and should reduce the potential for crashes at the intersection.

Based upon the traffic study, the DOH plans to install all-way stop control at the intersection within the next 60 days as an immediate measure.

The all-way stop control will improve the operation of the WV Highway 5 approach and reduce the occurrence of angle crashes at the intersection.

All-way stop control of the intersection would be considered an interim measure and the DOH would continue to monitor the operation of the intersection and reviewing options for a future project which may involve the construction of a roundabout.

Based upon the traffic study, WVDOH believes the installation of a roundabout is a viable option for the long term operation of the intersection in comparison to a traditional traffic signal.

G-FYI™: Request Your Assistance/ Gilmer County School‏s

Letter to Delegete Boggs:

September 12, 2012

Greetings Delegate Boggs

Subject:    State DOE takeover of Gilmer County Schools.

By now, you are likely aware how many in the community feel the takeover was brought about.  Let’s just skip over that, call that a separate issue that will never be resolved.  The more disturbing issue at hand is the methods that were employed in the takeover, the total lack of consideration for citizens and the treatment of Gilmer citizens since the flawed takeover.

Please understand clearly too, that the issue, problems,  hard feelings are not and have never been about school consolidation or closings.  It is DOE methodology, treatments, apparent lack of respect for the people of Gilmer.  Again, not consolidation.

For the first time in our State history, there was no probationary, ‘let’s see if you can repair it’ period.  That in itself was wrong, very wrong.  There was nothing listed in or on the OEPA audit report that would support an immediate State takeover.  The original report, that was posted online, was actually revised at least once after it was posted.  The original audit report, being in poor grammar and very weak.  That first report was what was presented to our Gilmer Board as the basis for takeover.

Since the takeover,  our board has been shut out of any negotiations,  planning,  information,  school site selections,  and etc.  The list goes on and on.  The State hired superintendent has been rude,  has refused to provide requested information,  has promised information with it not forthcoming,  has even sat in public school meeting with his back turned to the people assembled.  May I say the height of rudeness, ignorance, and indifference?

If the State DOE expects cooperation from the community, such actions are not likely to result in but anything except a hostile relationship.

The Gilmer CEFP process was conducted in a questionable, what one would almost call an illegal manner.  That whole process needs revisited immediately, before it takes us further along the path of no return.

Now even more disturbing is the fact of the State BOE decimating our already small school population.  We cannot get straight answers to these numbers, but here is what appears to be happening.  The new Lewis County School will be built to house 240 students.  It appears the Lewis County will populate the school with about 86 students, so the balance of approximately 154 students will come from Gilmer County.  Something seems very, very wrong with that move.  Inefficient to say the least.  Cruel and unusual punishment for the elementary children rather.  Would it not make more sense to bus the 86 into Gilmer County?

Please get a “time-out”  in this process.  Please get a dialogue started.  The way this is proceeding, there will be wounds and feelings that will continue for a generation or longer.  This is going to leave a legacy across the entire State of West Virginia for the Department of Education.  What legacy or reputation do they want?  What do you want to see left behind?

Thank you for your time and attention.  I look forward to your reply.  I will submit a copy of this letter to news media Monday, September 17, 2012.

~~  Gilmer Schools Coalition Member - Author on file ~~

 

Reply received from Delegate Boggs:

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX

I received your email correspondence detailing your concerns about the West Virginia Department of Education takeover of the Gilmer County school system.  I have been reviewing information on the process of state school board takeovers.  As you know the State Board of Education has already stepped in, now we need to expedite the process and work to address the issues that led the Department of Education to takeover the county system.

I have had conversations with Charles Heinlein, Deputy Superintendent of the West Virginia Department of Education, regarding how Gilmer County moves forward.  State education officials will visit Gilmer County later this month to discuss various concerns and a plan of action.  The ultimate goal is to return the school system to the county as soon issues are satisfactorily addressed.  In my conversations and research on State Department of Education county takeovers, I understand this is not an easy process.  However, I am encouraged that the State is listening to the concerns of the school and community..  However, I agree with you in that the State should continue to make every effort to listen to the concerns of those in the school system and the county.

In light of the possibility that a majority of the students who will attend the new Gilmer/Lewis school will in fact be from Gilmer County, I have concerns on how the school will operate and be governed.  The Legislature did not have a say or influence the decisions made regarding site selection or where on that particular property to build the school.  It is my understanding that a committee established by both counties selected the property and the site on the property to build.  According to WV Code, the school will be governed by the county board of education of the county wherein it is located.

I hope this information is helpful to you.  I assure you I will continue to monitor these issues and keep you apprised of any additional information I receive regarding the Gilmer County school system.  I have also included below the text of my weekly column regarding the issues you raised in your email.

Sincerely,

Brent Boggs

G-FYI™: Gilmer County Schools Superintendent Blankenship’s Update

Friday, June 22, 2012

Weekly Update for BOE:

•  On Monday, the BOE met at Gilmer County High School.  Mr. Ted Shriver updated the board on progress related to the inter county elementary school.  Part of the presentation outlined activities of the Educational Specifications Planning Committee.  The next planning committee meeting will be on June 20, 2012 at Alum Bridge Elementary starting at 9:00 a.m.

•  On Tuesday, Mrs. Starkey and I attended the monthly meeting of the Calhoun Gilmer Administrative Council.  Mrs. Starkey will give a report at the July 2, 2012 board meeting.  The remainder of the day was spent reviewing applications for all posted positions.  We were very fortunate to have over twenty applications for current elementary vacancies.

•  On Tuesday evening, I met with the CEFP Committee and gave them an update on the Inter County elementary school project.  In addition, the committee discussed the feasibility of acquiring the Arbuckle site for the proposed Gilmer Elementary site before the purchase option expires.  The committee discussed the pros and cons regarding acquisition but did not reach a consensus.  Consequently, we do not plan to exercise the purchase option for the site.

•  On Wednesday, the Inter County Educational Specifications Planning Committee met at Alum Bridge Elementary.  The morning was spent discussing the different design aspects of the new building and various staffing issues.

•  On Thursday, I attended the annual year end celebration for all youth involved in the Region Four Youth Advantage Program.  Unfortunately, it appears funding will not be available for a summer work component.

•  The roof air conditioning unit on the courthouse annex broke a fan blade on Thursday.  Consequently, temperatures in the second floor offices reached mid-nineties by early afternoon.  As a result, I will allow the central office staff to work at other locations until the unit is repaired early next week.

•  I will be in Charleston next week for the State Superintendent Leadership Institute and WVASA conference.

Please contact me if you have questions.

Respectfully,

Ron Blankenship

CommunityAlert: Blankenship’s Advocacy for Purchase of Arbuckle Trust Land for Consolidated School

I would like to thank Mr. Blankenship for allowing me to attend this meeting. – G. Dave Ramezan, The Gilmer Free Press

A CEFP meeting was conducted the evening of Tuesday, June 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM in Gilmer County Schools Central Office at which purchasing of 73.9 acres of Arbuckle trust land on U.S. Hwy 33W/119S of Glenville, WV (on top of Glenville Hill about Auction Barn) for a new consolidated Gilmer Elementary School was discussed.

Mr. Ron Blankenship, the State appointed superintendent of Gilmer County schools, adamantly championed purchase of the land.

His position was counter to the points that:

A) There is inadequate proof that construction of a new consolidated grade school at the Arbuckle site is the best option for the County,

B) A thorough evaluation was not made to objectively choose a broader set of candidate sites from which to choose for a new school,

C) There is underrepresentation of citizens on the controversial CEFP committee involved in making the Arbuckle land purchase decision, and

D) There is no guarantee that if Arbuckle land was purchased by the County that the State would fund construction of a new school.

Supportive Arguments For Four Previously Listed Points:

Point A: With the foregone conclusion that the Lewis-Gilmer Elementary School will be constructed and Gilmer County children from that edge of the County, and reportedly children from the Sand Fork area will be bused to that school, if we need a new consolidated school we must evaluate where it should be located.

Point B: It is questionable to conclude with blind faith that the Arbuckle trust land is the best site for a new school when there are countless other sites available for consideration.  Any school child could use Google Earth to “fly” over the County to locate potential sites for a grade school. Mr. Blankenship rationalizes that a 70+ acre site is necessary for the eventual construction of three schools. How can he justify that conclusion given the County’s continual loss of population caused by our chronic lack of livable wage jobs? Then too, Mr. Blankenship justifies that use of eminent domain can be avoided if Arbuckle land is purchased.  Is that a good enough reason to purchase that land when the eminent domain provision is always a legal option when a development is in the best interests of the public?  Besides, it is understood that the appraised value of the Arbuckle land is $1,000 an acre (based on appraisal by a commercial property appraiser chosen by Mr. Blankenship after declaring the property commercial) but Mr. Blankenship settles for $1,400. Why, as a public servant, does he want to spend the public’s money that way when there may be a host of land owners willing to sell suitable land more reasonably for a new school or to even donate it for a worthy cause?

Point C:  It was reported that there was inter-personal strife among original CEFP committee members and a number of them elected not to participate leaving a small group behind to recommend land to purchase. Is it not true that two of the voting members in that remaining group had a vested interest in the Linn and Arbuckle sites because purchases would garner personal family gain?  In this regard, is it not factual that Mr. R. Terry Butcher, a local attorney and a partner of the Butcher and Butcher Law Firm, is one of two trustees for the Arbuckle trust and if that land were to be purchased he and his family would gain financially?

Point D: Mr. Blankenship proposes to use $115,000 of the County’s 1.2 million dollars of reserve money (Money saved for OPEB liability by Gilmer County Board of Education before takeover) to purchase the Arbuckle land (He noted since the state is going to take care of the OPEB liability, the money is no longer needed and can be used. He is also using this money to pay for 1/2 of over $300,000 for the 20 acres land being purchased for inter-county school. He mentioned the deed for this property should be ready to sign real soon). What if the State refuses to provide funding if the site is purchased? Is it likely that with the way the State takeover occurred with the ugly head of politics and under- the- table dealings, that Gilmer County citizens would ever pass a bond issue to fund a new school on the Arbuckle land? The worst case scenario would be for it to be purchased to remain idle off our tax rolls. Additionally, with existence of the County’s 1.2 million dollars of cash reserves, why would it not be wise to use some of it to shore up our existing schools until a professionally done, comprehensive plan could be formulated for ways to establish a truly superior K-12 school system in the County?  Then too, why is some of the reserve money not being used to hire a badly needed 5th grade teacher at Normantown and Troy that Mr. Blankenship promised citizens he would look into?

There were twelve(12) CEFP committee attendees at the meeting, and those seemingly in favor of the Arbuckle land purchase are indicated with a (+) mark after their names, ones seemed to be uncertain are marked with (+/-), those with no opinion (~), and those seemingly not in favor have a (–) entry (according to this reporter’s consensus and view in the meeting).

•  Ron Blankenship +

•  Dave Bishop +

•  Toni Bishop +/-

•  Nancy McVaney +/-

•  Sue Morris –

•  Nasia Butcher +

•  Betty Anderson +

•  Joe Frasure +

•  Martha Hicks +

•  John Bennett –

•  Connie Frame +

•  Connor Ferguson   ~

Of the twelve(12) CEFP members in attendance, eight(8) were current school system employees over whom Ron Blankenship exercised power, there was one(1) business person, two(2)  former school system employees, and one(1) school system student to comprise an underrepresented community’s profile.

However, a formal vote was not taken and Mr. Blankenship seemed to signal that without the authority of a majority vote to authorize the land purchase, he may make a decision unilaterally.  Also, he stipulated that if the land is purchased it must be done by July 12, 2012.

Regarding Sue Morris’s position, in all fairness to the widely admired philanthropist, she noted the land was not worth the price. She said the land has not done anything for past 20 years and will not do anything for the next 20 either. She also cited her husband as always saying that the land purchase was the best investment but again this land was too expensive and was not worth the price Mr. Blankenship wanted to pay. She also noted the county should not just spend the money because it is there. She said the money can be used for other functions.

The land on WV Hwy 5 W was noted as out of question because part of it is in the flood plain. With another on Camden Flats, Mr. Blankenship did not want to practice eminent domain. Finally, as a last option, the property across from the Auction Barn (Furr – McCartney) was mentioned citing not enough space.

Mr. Blankenship was not able to see a feasible land on one of his trips from Glenville to Normantown except in the Letter Gap area which he said was not big enough.

Finally, the CEFP Committee agreed to re-submit the application for the Gilmer Elementary School on Arbuckle property on November 01, 2012 to be decided by the SBA on April of 2013.

This quagmire leaves us with the question—of Gilmer County citizens how do we react?

Do we stand up united for ourselves and our children to stop this travesty or do we let the “elites” continue to exercise their absolute control?

The outcome is up to us, and fellow citizens throughout West Virginia are watching.

G-FYI™: Letter to Vision Shared, Inc.

June 18, 2012

215 College St.
Glenville, WV 26351

Ms. Rebecca McPhail Randolph
President and CEO
Vision Shared, Inc.
729 9th Avenue, No. 199
Huntington, WV 25701-2718

Dear Ms. Randolph:

When West Virginia State Department of Education (WVDOE) officials seize control of a county’s school system a formal exit plan is not used. Accordingly, there is no documentation of specific remedial tasks to perform and task completion priorities and accomplishment dates are not defined as part of a trackable project management system. The result is a loose management style that can take years for a school system to be returned to local control.

After Gilmer County’s school system was seized by the WVDOE in 2011 it became apparent that there was no schedule for returning it to local control and a Gilmer Schools Coalition was formed. Information regarding the Coalition’s activities can be accessed at www.gilmerfreepress.net.

The Coalition’s membership proposed an exit plan to the WVDOE as an efficient and trackable approach for remedying issues in the County.  A copy of the plan is attached with the thought that perhaps it could be used as a model for all counties with seized school systems. You are respectfully requested to review the plan and to consider including it in the final set of Vision’s recommendations for improving the WVDOE’s effectiveness.

Dr. William K. Simmons (304.462.8771) a former Chancellor of the State’s Higher Education System and a retired Glenville State College president is the Coalition’s spokesperson. He was elected to the Gilmer County School Board on which I am serving out an unexpired term of a former member.

The opportunity to submit the exit plan for Vision’s consideration is appreciated. My objective for the submission is to try to help achieve critically needed changes with the way the WVDOE operates to enable our youth to receive the quality of K-12 educations they deserve.

Sincerely,

Carl L. Armour, Ph.D.
304.462.7550
“Armour10@shentel.net”

Exit Plan Attached

Gilmer County Fire Department Information #2 – 05.06.12

Several members of the Gilmer County Volunteer Fire Department recently attended a class on building construction at the West Virginia State Fire Academy located in Jacksons Mills. The instructor discussed the manufactured materials used to build many homes today. These materials lose strength quickly once they start burning and cause the structure to collapse earlier during a fire compared to older homes built with solid wood framing.

In the event of a fire the most important priority is for you and your family to get out of the house as soon as possible. Modern furnishings with fabrics made from petroleum based products burn much faster than the wool, cotton, and silks once used in homes. Tests have shown that everything in a room with modern materials will be on fire in less than four minutes. In a room without any petroleum based products it may take more than an hour before everything is on fire.

The instructor called modern materials solidified gasoline. These include the fabrics, the foam seat cushions on furniture and the carpets made from recycled plastic bottles. Carbon monoxide is released when they burn along with a form of cyanide that can cause quick death. Because house fires today burn hotter and faster than those in previous times, smoke detectors are more important than ever.

Consider all possibilities when planning how to get out of your home in case of a fire. During a house fire near Morgantown the mother escaped out the back door. The two sons escaped by going out windows. The father died when he tried to go out the front door which he always used. Don’t let habit decide whether you live or die.

Remember, do not go back into a burning house. Talk to your family about where to meet outside so you know everyone is safe. Pick a place that is away from areas that smoke might reach. A home fire is always a tragedy. Don’t make the outcome worse by going back inside. While you may see the smoke that can kill, you won’t see the deadly gases that end your life.

G-FYI™: Memorandum of Understanding Between GCBOE and LCBOE

The following is the memorandum of understanding between Gilmer County and Lewis County for the proposed and full funded elementary school in Linn, WV area.

The new proposed school replaces the Troy Elementary School in Gilmer County and Alum Bridge Elementary School in Lewis County.

At least 4 members of the Gilmer County Board of Education were not informed and or involved in drafting of this memorandum.

 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN

THE WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE GILMER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

AND

THE LEWIS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

RE: GOVERNANCE AND OPERATION OF INTERCOUNTY SCHOOL

      This agreement is entered into between the West Virginia Board of Education (hereafter, WVBOE) acting on behalf of the Gilmer County Board of Education(GCBOE), sending county, pursuant to W. Va. Code §18-2E-5, and the Lewis County Board of Education (hereafter, LCBOE), receiving county.

      The GCBOE superintendent, WVBOE, and LCBOE each recognize that the education and welfare of students in Gilmer and Lewis Counties will be enhanced by the establishment of a school in the location of Linn, WV, on or near the Gilmer and Lewis County line. The counties have identified the establishment of this school as their priority needs project and have jointly made a request to the West Virginia School Building Authority (SBA) for funds to be used in constructing the school. The purpose of this agreement is to memorialize the agreement of the parties as to the establishment, operation and management of the intercounty school. The agreement shall be in full force and effect and honored by all parties, now and in the future, unless and until all parties agree to any changes which shall be memorialized in writing.

1.    Establishment and Operation

      The establishment, operation and management of the intercounty school shall be governed by W. Va. Code §18-5-11, §18-9A-14, and §18A-4-8i and other applicable portions of West Virginia Code and WVBOE Policy. Because the tax assessment of the property on which the school will be built is determined by and payable to Lewis County, the title of the school shall be held in the name of the Lewis County Board of Education which shall be vested with the control and management of the school. The cost for acquisition of the property shall be apportioned between the GCBOE and the LCBOE on an equal basis as follows:

          • GCBOE will pay $167,500 toward the purchase of approximately twenty (20) acres of property located at Linn, West Virginia, to be used as the site for the proposed intercounty elementary school. A description of the property is found in the deed attached at Appendix A.

          • LCBOE will pay $167,500 toward the purchase of approximately twenty (20) acres of property located at Linn, West Virginia, to be used as the site for the proposed intercounty elementary school.

      Gilmer County Schools will be responsible for procurement of all architectural services related to this project. Invoices for architectural and engineering services will be submitted to the GCBOE, requisitions will be sent to the SBA by GCBOE, and SBA will render payment directly to the architect for architectural and engineering services. All other requisitions associated with this project shall be submitted to the LCBOE.
      West Virginia Code §18-9A-14 will govern the transfer of money via the state aid formula to LCBOE as a result of the transfer of students from GCBOE.

      Except as set forth above regarding property acquisition and payment for architectural and engineering services, the GCBOE shall not be otherwise responsible for expenses incurred in the operation of the new school.

2. Advisory Council Composition

      An Advisory Council shall be created and shall be in place and active no later than 12 months prior to the opening of the intercounty school. The Council shall be comprised of the receiving and sending county superintendents, ex-officio; one receiving and one sending county Board of Education Member elected for two-year terms; the LSIC Chair Person; the principal of the intercounty school once selected; and the PTA president. (During the school planning process, the LSIC Chair Person and PTA President from both Troy and Alum Bridge elementary schools shall serve on the council. Once the school is complete and ready to open, the joint LSIC and PTA will elect one Chair Person and one president, respectively, to represent the new school.)

3. Advisory Council Role

      The parties agree that the Advisory Council shall make recommendations to the LCBOE regarding the general operation of the intercounty school, including but not limited to the following:

        a. Personnel

      All personnel issues shall be brought before the Advisory Council which shall make recommendations on all personnel issues arising at the intercounty school after discussion and review with input from both county superintendents. The LCBOE superintendent shall forward the recommendations of the council to the LCBOE for action.

      In accordance with §18A-4-8i, professional educators- and service personnel whose names appear on the certified list of employees created pursuant to the provisions of subsection (c) of the section and who are hired by the county board of the receiving county shall accrue seniority in both the sending and the receiving counties during the time in which they continue to be employed by the county board of the receiving county. This means that the employees of the sending county (GCBOE) will retain their years of service/seniority without interruption when they transfer to the receiving county (LCBOE). This seniority is not limited to use solely at the intercounty school.

        b. Policy

      The LCBOE will govern the new intercounty school with the guidance and recommendations of the Advisory Council. The LCBOE superintendent shall forward the recommendations of the Council to the LCBOE for action.

        c. Transportation Routes

      Each county will be responsible for transporting its own students to the new intercounty school. The Advisory Council may make recommendations regarding ways to save transportation time and costs regarding students attending the school. The LCBOE superintendent shall forward the recommendations of the council to the LCBOE for action.

        d. Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plan (CEFP) Revisions

      CEFP revisions will be the responsibility of the receiving county (LCBOE). The Advisory Council may make recommendations to the LCBOE regarding facilities planning. The LCBOE superintendent shall forward the recommendations of the council to the LCBOE for action.

        e. School Funds

      Any unexpended funds remaining in the Troy and Alum Bridge school accounts, including faculty senate funds, will be transferred to the intercounty school once it is opened. All financial obligations and debts incurred by the respective schools (Troy and Alum Bridge) shall be satisfied prior to the opening of the new school.

      The Advisory Council may make recommendations regarding support organizations and fundraising ideas for the intercounty school. All school support organizations must be officially approved by the LCBOE. The LCBOE superintendent shall forward the recommendations of the council to the intercounty school principal and/or LCBOE for action as appropriate.

        4. Planning Committee

      The entire LSIC at Troy and Alum Bridge elementary schools, as well as such additional members as may be designated by the superintendents of GCBOE and LCBOE, will comprise a planning committee to exist for the duration of the intercounty school construction.  The committee shall have the responsibility for development of educational specifications as designated in SBA policy. The planning committee shall also have responsibilities for determining the intercounty school name, mascot, colors, etc.

        5. Advisory Council Meetings

      All meetings shall be properly noticed pursuant to the West Virginia Open Meetings Act. The parties agree that the Advisory Council shall meet at least monthly and alternate the meeting location between counties until the intercounty school is completed. After the school is Completed, Advisory Council Meetings shall occur at the school. The Advisory Council shall meet at least quarterly with the sending county (GCBOE) and at least monthly with the receiving county (LCBOE). Special meetings shall be held as necessary and the meetings noticed accordingly.

      The first meeting of the Advisory Council shall be announced jointly by the superintendents of GCBOE and LCBOE. At this meeting, a chairperson shall be elected. Prior to the election of a chairperson, the meeting shall be jointly chaired by the superintendents of GCBOE and LCBOE. Thereafter, the chairperson shall conduct elections for the offices of vice-chair and secretary. All offices shall have terms of one year.

        6. Conflicts

      Nothing in this agreement shall contravene the duties and rights of the parties as set forth in West Virginia law. If any provision herein is found to conflict with controlling law, that portion of the agreement shall be rendered null and void without invalidating the remaining provisions in the agreement.

        7. Agreement and Signature

      The parties agree to the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding as evidenced by the signatures, below. This Memorandum of Understanding shall be executed in three duplicate originals.

West Virginia Board of Education acting on behalf of the Gilmer County Board of Education:
By:  Wade Linger, President
Date:

Lewis County Board of Education:

By: Joseph L. Mace, Superintendent
Date:

Gilmer County Fire Department Information #1 – 04.29.12

This is the first of a series of articles to inform the people of Gilmer County about their fire department and to provide useful information that can help them protect themselves and their families.

The Gilmer County Volunteer Fire Department was established on May 12, 1947. It is organized as a IRS 501(C)3. The board of directors consists of two members from each station and a chairman which meet once a month. The fire department serves the entire county of 340 square miles accessed by over 500 miles of public and private roads with five stations located in Cedarville, Glenville, Normantown, Sand Fork and Troy. It is unusual compared to other fire departments in West Virginia because it serves an entire county with multiple stations.

The fire department responds to fires, automobile accidents, calls for assisting ambulance crews, highway blockages involving fallen trees and rock slides, downed power lines, alarm reports, hazardous material incidents, reports of leaking gas, and missing person reports. The fire department also provides support and training for the Project Lifesaver program administered by the sheriff’s department to allow those with diminished capacity to be found if they disappear. Typically the fire department responds to about 140 incidents per year.

Through mutual aid agreements, the fire department assists fire departments in other counties such as Doddridge, Lewis and Ritchie Counties. In turn those fire department assist Gilmer County when necessary.

The fire department currently has 56 active volunteers. Becoming a firefighter requires taking a 140 hour firefighter 1 course including hazardous material familiarization, first aid and CPR. Firefighters recertify on first aid and CPR every two years. Training continues with additional courses following completion of the firefighter I course.

Training is often conducted at the Glenville station with some members attending classes elsewhere in the state. Most recently the fire department has utilized the training resources of the West Virginia Fire Academy in Jackson Mills. Most of the firefighters’ training is paid by the fire department with the exception of occasional courses that a state or federal agency may offer for free.

G-FYI™: Evaluation Of Proposed Needs Project for New Gilmer and Lewis/Gilmer Schools

GILMER COUNTY

SBA FUNDS - $14,005,180 (89%)  LOCAL FUNDS - $750,000 (5%)

OTHER FUNDS - $890,000 (6%) TOTAL FUNDS - $15,735,180

Gilmer County requests SBA funds for the construction of a new Gilmer County Elementary School.

This school will consolidate Glenville Elementary, Sand Fork Elementary and Normantown Elementary and will be located near Glenville, the population center of the county.

At a later time, a 7-8 grade addition will be constructed so that a PK-4 and 5-8 grade configuration can be achieved.

Click to see Printable EVALUATION OF PROPOSED NEEDS PROJECT for Gilmer County

 

 

LEWIS/GILMER COUNTY

SBA FUNDS - $11,138,878 (100%)  LOCAL FUNDS - $-0-

TOTAL FUNDS - $11,138,878

Lewis and Gilmer Counties collectively request SBA funds for the construction of a new “Lewis and Gilmer combined Elementary School project.”

Lewis County will close Alum Bridge Elementary School and in collaboration with Gilmer County Board of Education closing Troy Elementary, and will pursue an Alum Bridge-Troy Inter-County PK-6 elementary school to be located on the Lewis/Gilmer County Line on US 33/119.

This project is Lewis and Gilmer Counties #1 project adopted in the 2010-2020 CEFP.

Click to see Printable EVALUATION OF PROPOSED NEEDS PROJECT for Lewis/Gilmer County

G-FYI™: Little Action Taken in Clay Man’s FOIA Suit against County Development Agency

The WV Record Reports:

A year after it was filed, a Clay County man’s Freedom of Information Act suit remains at square one.

Since he filed it on Feb. 17, 2011, Michael Boggs’ suit in Kanawha Circuit Court to compel the Clay County Business Development Authority to disclose three years’ of records has seen little action. The most recent was a motion filed Dec. 9 by his attorney David R. Karr Jr. to file an amended complaint.

Karr’s motion came in response to a combined answer, and motion to dismiss filed by the state Development Office which was named as co-defendant in Boggs’ suit. The WVDO is the reason the suit is in Kanawha Circuit as after Boggs filed his original suit in Clay Circuit Court two years ago against the BDA and the Clay County Commission, Judge Jack Alsop dismissed it finding WVDO had an interest in determining some of the funds it gave the Authority.

Kanawha County has original jurisdiction in lawsuits involving state agencies.

In its answer, and motion to dismiss filed July 19, Assistant Attorney General Mary Downey denied Boggs’ allegations. Also, she asserted a defense WVDO “acted within its legal rights and within the proper standard of practice in the conduct of all activities.“

In response to Downey’s motion, Karr stated the amended complaint corrected the “perceived flaws in the original complaint argued by the West Virginia Development Office to exist, as per the West Virginia Development Office’s motion to dismiss previously filed herein, which has yet be heard by the Court.“ Among the language omitted in the amended complaint is Boggs’ claim WVDO is not only CCBDA’s funding source, but it also “has an interest in the determination of various receipts and disbursements.“

Boggs’ amended complaint contains all the original claims he made against CCBDA and the Commission that include the Authority holding meetings, and making decisions without the minimum number of members, failing to publish its quarterly and annual reports from 2008-2010 and re-appointing him as member on a month-to-month basis instead of a three-year term. Also, the amended complaint continues to aver Boggs’ termination from the Board in July 2010 was due to his refusal in “remaining quiet about the above-mentioned statutory violations”

Records show, Judge Charles E. King Jr. has yet to rule on any of the motions including another one made by Karr seeking default judgment against the Commission and the Authority for failing to answer Boggs’ suit after 30 days of receiving notice of it.

Kanawha Circuit Court case number 11-C-269

~~  Lawrence Smith – WV Record ~~

G-FYI™: Proposed School Crosses County Lines

Charleston Daily Mail Reports:

To avoid lengthy rides to school and costly building repairs, officials from Gilmer and Lewis counties want to create an inter-county elementary school.

If funding for the plan is approved, the school would be the only one of its kind in West Virginia, Gilmer Superintendent Ron Blankenship said.

“It’s very exciting,“ Blankenship said. “It’s a great opportunity for students in both counties.“

According to the plan submitted to the state School Building Authority, Gilmer County would consolidate Troy Elementary School with Lewis County’s Alum Bridge Elementary School at the new building, tentatively plotted in the border community of Linn.

The plan anticipates more than $500,000 in annual savings and more than $500,000 in avoided costs for the counties.

Each school caters to about 100 students, but the new school would house 240 children, Blankenship said. Troy serves students in pre-kindergarten programs through sixth grade, while Alum Bridge only serves students up to the fourth grade, Blankenship said. Lewis County officials have agreed to send students through the sixth grade to the new school.

Both schools received “poor” ratings from the authority staff for different parts of their facilities. Problems included site access, parking, restrooms and food service facilities.

The report said Troy “is in very deplorable condition and has been cited for several health and safety violations.“

A new school will let each county affordably provide a better learning opportunity for students, Blankenship said. It will also cut down on transportation times for children who live far away from school, he said. 

“Parents should be able to send their children to the closest school,“ Blankenship said.

Although a combined school will lead to some duplication of duties, Blankenship expects few jobs to be lost. Teachers at Troy are already forced to teach several different grade levels, so the new school could allow them to focus on one particular group, he said.

The actual employees who are retained for the school is up to the state Board of Education, Blankenship said. Each county must submit a list to the board with the names of current employees who would like a position at the new school. New positions will be filled from the list before the board looks elsewhere. 

A location hasn’t been chosen yet, Blankenship said. The counties have agreed to split the cost.

The state took over operations of the Gilmer County school system in June 2010. In the wake of that decision, a group calling itself the Gilmer County Education Coalition organized to “restore credibility” to the school system, spokesman William Simmons said.

He said there is some concern now among group members over a possible conflict of interest within the group.

One of the group’s 35 members owns a parcel of land that is among those being considered for the new school site. 

Blankenship said he could not comment on where the final site might be.

The counties are eyeing properties that straddle the county line, he said. Whichever most of the school falls on will be the side responsible for the building.

Both counties have agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding stating that each needs to take part in the direction of the school. A group comprised of people from both counties will have some say in what happens at the school.

Apart from the site dispute and what Simmons described as a lack of openness in the selection process, he said the coalition was excited about the new school.

“It’s probably the wave of the future,“ he Simmons, adding that he has worked in education at various levels throughout the state for years.

Mary Scott, principal at Alum Bridge, said both counties have been very cooperative thus far but declined further comment. Messages left with Lewis County Superintendent Joseph Hale were not returned by press time.

There are no other plans for other inter-county schools associated with Gilmer County, but Blankenship thought the idea could serve as a model for other rural schools looking to provide similar services.

Liza Cordeiro, spokeswoman for the state Board of Education, said the tentative plan would be the only of its kind currently under consideration. Lincoln and Logan counties once had a similar agreement though, she said. 

Gilmer and Lewis counties are relying on the authority to fund the school as a part of its 2012 needs projects requests. The counties will need a little more than $11 million from the authority in order to build the school, according to the report. Blankenship would not commit to an exact cost estimate, but said the plan was for the authority to cover all construction costs.

There are 22 other requests before the authority, including a roughly $14 million bid from Gilmer County to construct a different elementary school. The authority is slated to discuss the projects during a meeting Monday, and will render final decisions for which projects to fund at an April 23 meeting, Blankenship said.

Dave Boucher 304.348.4843 - “david.bouc…@dailymail.com”  ~~

G-FYI™: Gilmer County Schools - Conceptual Site Plans

G-FYI™: West Virginia Shield Law

On March 12, 2011 the West Virginia state legislature enacted H.B. 2159, adding §57-3-10, “Reporters’ Privilege,” to the Code of West Virginia. The statute, which was signed by Acting Governor Earl Ray Tomblin in April and took effect June 10, extends a qualified privilege with few limitations to reporters seeking to protect confidential sources of information, supplementing existing state constitutional protection.

Under the law, reporters cannot be “compelled to testify in civil, criminal, administrative, or grand jury proceedings” without “the consent of the confidential source.” Reporters also cannot be compelled “to produce any information or testimony that would identify a confidential source” without the consent of the source. The privilege may be overcome, however, when the testimony “is necessary to prevent imminent death, serious bodily injury, or unjust incarceration.”

The statute defines a reporter as “a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood, or a supervisor, or employer of that person in that capacity.” The law also extends to student journalists, “provided that [the] student reporter at an accredited educational institution … meets all of the requirements of this definition, except that his or her reporting may not provide a portion of his or her livelihood.”

The West Virginia legislation also mandates that the section not be read “to limit any existing constitutional protections afforded any person under the United States or West Virginia Constitutions,” a provision which, in an April 06, 2011 report, the RCFP called “significant … in light of [West Virginia] courts’ general acceptance of the state Supreme Court’s articulation of a qualified reporter’s privilege in Hudok v. Henry.” In Hudok, 389 S.E.2d 188 (WV 1989), reporters claimed a privilege under the free press clause of the First Amendment and under Article II, Section 7 of the West Virginia Constitution to decline to answer questions or to divulge information obtained in the course of newsgathering. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held “disclosure of a reporter’s confidential sources or news-gathering materials may not be compelled except upon a clear and specific showing that the information is highly material and relevant, necessary or critical to the maintenance of the claim, and not obtainable from other available sources.” The original draft of the shield law contained the Hudok test, but the House Judiciary Committee ultimately omitted that language.

Media and First Amendment advocates supported the law, but not without some skepticism. In an Editor’s Log blog post on The Parkersburg (W. Va.) News and Sentinel website, News and Sentinel Executive Editor Jim Smith wrote, “the bottom line is with a strong shield law, the public gets information that may be vital to it and its understanding of events of the day or government-related activities.” But Smith also expressed concern: “It will be interesting to see how effective the law is in practice. Unfortunately, there always seems to be a broad difference between the intent and spirit of a law and how it is actually followed.”

Student Press Law Center (SPLC) Director Frank LoMonte praised the student journalist provision of the bill in a blog post on the organization’s website on March 14, saying the bill would make West Virginia’s shield law among the strongest in the nation for student journalists. In a March 10 column in the Charleston, W.Va. Daily Mail, two days before the law passed, LoMonte encouraged the West Virginia Legislature to recognize student journalists as it considered the measure. “With the ranks of full-time salaried journalists shrinking, unpaid college students increasingly are providing the news coverage that communities rely on to stay informed. Student journalists assume all of the same risks and responsibilities that professionals do, and they should be entitled to all of the same protections,” he wrote.

The new shield law may be applied for the first time after the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the state’s highest court, held that a trial judge erred in ordering a newspaper to reveal the identities of anonymous sources and documents in a defamation suit. Lincoln Journal v. Hustead, No. 35734, 2011 W. Va. LEXIS 25 (W. Va. May 2, 2011)

In that case, The Lincoln (WV) Journal and individual reporters petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Jane Hustead from enforcing a September 14, 2010 order compelling them to reveal sources and newsgathering materials. Hustead’s order stemmed from a series of articles in The Lincoln Journal that alleged illegal campaign donations by the owner of a rival newspaper and other individuals to local candidates in 2008 primary elections. The reports cited several anonymous sources and Lincoln County Prosecuting Attorney William J. “Jackie” Stevens II. The stories also referred to copies of the criminal complaints that had been submitted to the paper and to Stevens. The state’s high court ruled May 02 that the lower court “was required to separately identify each allegedly defamatory article with specificity, each source therein that the plaintiffs sought through discovery, and thereupon conduct for each article a separate Hudok analysis,” rather than analyze them all together.

Because the lower court review will be conducted after the new shield law is in place, it may benefit the newspaper. David Barnette, The Lincoln Journal’s lawyer and general counsel for the West Virginia Broadcasters Association, told the RCFP for a May 09 story that when the case undergoes further review, the newspaper may avoid the Hudok analysis if the court applies the new shield law, although the law allows the reviewing judge to consider the Hudok factors if he or she chooses. By applying the Hudok test, Barnette said, “The court can go beyond what the Legislature can do.”

Since West Virginia trial judge erred when she ordered a newspaper to reveal the identities of anonymous sources and documents in a defamation suit against the paper, the state’s highest court ruled differently.

Click to Read the Ruling

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia returned the case to the lower court, which must identify and analyze each allegedly defamatory statement and the confidential source who made the statement separately.

Cabell Circuit Judge F. Jane Hustead failed to undertake this specific analysis when she ordered The Lincoln Journal to reveal anonymous sources referred to in a series of articles alleging that the owner of a rival newspaper and other individuals illegally contributed money to local candidates in the 2008 primary elections, the Supreme Court of Appeals in Lincoln Journal v. Hon. Jane F. Hustead, Judge.

Click for Additional Information

G-FYI™: Gilmer County Circuit Judge Dismisses the FOIA Lawsuit

Update:  02.27.12 :

Today, Monday, February 27, 2012, the Gilmer County Circuit Judge Richard Facemeir dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit filed by the Gilmer County Prosecutor Gerry Hough on behalf of Gilmer County Commission, and Jean Butcher, the Gilmer County Clerk against Lawrence Smith from WV Record.

The lawsuit was filed because Smith had requested information under FOIA.

Decision was made by the Judge after Gerry Hough and Lawrence Smith made their presentation to the court.
The decision by the Judge means that the lawsuit may not be re-filed, and as such, it operates as an adjudication on the merits.

Details to follow…..

===========================================

Update - 02.26.12 :

Related Document 1

Related Document 2

Related Document 3

===========================================

During a special meeting last month, the Gilmer County Commission released the details of settlement in the third-party lawsuit Summit Community Bank filed in federal court against the Clerk’s Office for improperly recording lien information on properties in the Rivers’ View Subdivision.

Through its insurance company, the commission paid Summit $40,000.

The details came a month after Lawrence J. Smith, a contributor with The West Virginia Record in Charleston, filed a lawsuit here in Gilmer County to compel its release.

During its regularly scheduled meeting on January 10, 2012, the Gilmer County Commission agreed with the recommendation of Prosecutor Gerry Hough to settle Smith’s suit, then sue him for frivolously filing it.

During the meeting, Hough said, “It is necessary to do this because we cannot allow the press to make the county look bad.“

The Commission and Jean Butcher, the County Clerk made good on their threat by including a counterclaim in their answer to Smith’s FOIA lawsuit.

In their counterclaim, they asked sanctions be levied against Smith “in the amount of court costs and attorney fees, and any other sanctions it deems fit and proper.“

A hearing on the commission’s and Butcher’s motion for sanctions is scheduled for tomorrow Monday February 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM before Judge Richard Facemire.

Since the courtroom will be open to the public during this hearing, we hope you will attend to see the fate of open government, and freedom of the press in Gilmer County.

G-FYI™: Gilmer County Circuit Court - Hearing Set for Monday on FOIA Lawsuit

Update - 02.26.12:

Related Document 1

Related Document 2

Related Document 3

===========================================

During a special meeting last month, the Gilmer County Commission released the details of settlement in the third-party lawsuit Summit Community Bank filed in federal court against the Clerk’s Office for improperly recording lien information on properties in the Rivers’ View Subdivision.

Through its insurance company, the commission paid Summit $40,000.

The details came a month after Lawrence J. Smith, a contributor with The West Virginia Record in Charleston, filed a lawsuit here in Gilmer County to compel its release.

During its regularly scheduled meeting on January 10, 2012, the Gilmer County Commission agreed with the recommendation of Prosecutor Gerry Hough to settle Smith’s suit, then sue him for frivolously filing it.

During the meeting, Hough said, “It is necessary to do this because we cannot allow the press to make the county look bad.“

The Commission and Jean Butcher, the County Clerk made good on their threat by including a counterclaim in their answer to Smith’s FOIA lawsuit.

In their counterclaim, they asked sanctions be levied against Smith “in the amount of court costs and attorney fees, and any other sanctions it deems fit and proper.“

A hearing on the commission’s and Butcher’s motion for sanctions is scheduled for tomorrow Monday February 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM before Judge Richard Facemire.

Since the courtroom will be open to the public during this hearing, we hope you will attend to see the fate of open government, and freedom of the press in Gilmer County.

G-LtE™: Failing Systems at All Levels

How can a student at Gilmer County High School can punch a kid and send him to hospital via Ambulance Squad, and come out of it with only a 4 day suspension?

Why, after having violated a probation that he is already on, the Prosecuting Attorney, DHHR (who has custody of him at this time) and his probation officer have done nothing but cuddle the kid?

This student (B*) needs help and Gerry Hough, Shelly DeMarino, Tara Kennedy, and DHHR constantly go to court and lie to protect this child so as to further their agenda against his father.

The student that he assaulted at Gilmer County High School not only was transported to the hospital (A* L*), once he got there, he had to have surgery following this incident.

In the past two weeks (B*) has been in trouble at school every day.

Last week he got in trouble for having tobacco at school, a spit bottle in the classroom, making a phone call from his cell phone during class, and cursing out loud during class.

He topped his week off by assaulting (A* L*) and received only 4 days suspension and upon his return to school at the end of last week, he was in trouble again for asking the teacher to define the word “c*nt” for him.

He has been sent away twice over the last few years.  Once to the Children’s Home in Elkins and most recently to Fox Run, a residential treatment facility in St. Clairesville, OH for actions much like these.

Upon his return from Fox Run, it was ordered that he see a counselor at least once a week and was put on probation with the stipulations that he stay out of trouble, attend school regularly with no absences, and maintain a 2.0 GPA.

None of which he has come close to doing, but he just got a little slap on his hand from Nasia Butcher and Jay Chambers at Gilmer County High School.

Also, every time his case goes to court for review, Gerry Hough, Tara Kennedy, DHHR and Shelly DeMarino lie about his progress.

Actually, they have spent the entire last year villianizing his father as the cause for the boy’s outburst and behavior.

His father sees him 4 hours every week.  So to admit that his father was right and that the boy needed help would mean that they would have to admit they were wrong as well as their wrong doings in court and their attacks against his father.

The Gilmer County High School officials and the Court System are failing him at all levels.

The Gilmer County High School, who has taken this mirage of a stance against bullying, and wasted thousands and thousands of dollars on the same anti-bullying program over and over, has done nothing to protect him or the other students in the school.

~~  Author and Source on File ~~

G-FYI™: GCHS Teacher Pleads No Contest

Gilmer County High School teacher, Casey Smith, showed up in Wood County Magistrate Court on January 20, 2012.

Accused of providing alcohol to a minor last fall in a hotel room, Smith pled no contest.

He paid a one-hundred dollar fine and one-hundred sixty dollar court cost.

G-FYI™: How To File A Freedom of Information Request in West Virginia

HOW TO FILE A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST IN WEST VIRGINIA

Statute: Freedom of Information Act, WV Code § 29B-1-1 et seq.

Preliminary Questions:

1. Are you seeking information from a “public body” as defined by the Act?
This includes anybody which is created by or primarily funded by state or local authority.

2. Is the information a “public record” under the Act? It must be “prepared, owned and retained by a public body.“

3. Who is the “custodian” of the record? In other words, whose record is it, and who is the elected or appointed administrator of that public body?

4. Do you want to inspect or copy the record? There may be a charge for copies, while inspections may take place at their office during business hours.

Statutory guidelines: WV Code § 29B-1-3 is basic authority.

1. A request to inspect or copy a public record must be made directly to the custodian of the record.

2. The request must state “with reasonable specificity” the information sought.

3. There is no statutory requirement that the request be in writing; however a writing is helpful to prove that the request was made.

Procedural tips:

1. Be sure you are asking the right person or department for the record. If possible, make a telephone call to find out who has the information you are seeking, and address your request to them.

2. The request should be in writing, either hand delivered with a copy for the custodian to sign indicating date of receipt; sent by certified mail, return receipt requested; or by facsimile showing proof of receipt.

3. Be as specific as possible. For example, don’t ask to see the records of all payments made by a public body, if you are only interested in payments to a specific individual or company.

4. State in the request whether you w ant to inspect or copy the record(s). If you are not sure, ask for a time and place where you can review them, and request copies of any that you want to keep then. If you want copies, ask how much they will cost.

5. Remind the custodian that they have five (5) business days to respond to your request.

6. Provide a telephone number where you may be reached during business hours, in case they have questions or need additional information from you.

Common Problems:

1. No such record exists. A public body is under no obligation to create a document that contains the information you seek. However, they may be able to produce one if you are willing to pay for it (including programming and personnel costs).

2. Request was made of the wrong person or public body. The person responding to your request does not have to tell you where you can obtain the information you seek, even if he or she knows. You should ask for this information, if you are not sure you are requesting the records from the right person or public body.

3. No response. If you do not receive an answer within three working days after the statutory time period has run, follow up on your request, in writing. Remind them of the civil and criminal enforcement provisions of the statute should they fail to provide you with a timely answer.

4. Request is refused under a claimed statutory exemption from disclosure. If you do not agree that the exemption applies, ask for the name, address and telephone number of their attorney and contact him or her. If that fails, seek legal counsel to enforce the Freedom of Information Act in the circuit court of the county where the record is kept.

Other Matters:

– If the records exist in magnetic, electronic or computer form, copies must be made available on magnetic or electronic media, if so requested.

– A person who successfully sues a public body for access to public records may recover attorney fees and court costs from the public body that denied him or her access to the records.

SAMPLE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER

Mr. Ronald Blankenship, Superintendent
Gilmer County Schools
201 N. Court Street
Glenville, WV 25351

January 18, 2012

CERTIFIED MAIL,
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Your Name
Your Address
City, State, ZipCode

RE: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Superintendent Blankenship:

Pursuant to the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act, WV Code § 29B-1-3, I hereby request copies of the following public records:

The minutes of the December, 2011, meeting of the Board of Education, the agenda for that meeting along with any written materials discussed, all committee reports submitted at the meeting, and any ordinances or resolutions adopted by Board at that meeting.

I am willing to pay a reasonable fee for the cost of reproducing these records. However, if this fee will be more than ten dollars ($10.00), I would like the opportunity to review the documents in person before deciding if I want copies of them.

Please respond to this request within five (5) business days by either mailing me the copies with a bill for the charges, or advising me of the time and place at which I may inspect and copy these records, and what the cost will be for any copies. If you prefer, I can pick them up at your office and pay for them then.

If you have any questions or need additional information from me, I may be reached by telephone at 304.555-1234 between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, or at home at 304.555.4321.

Thank you for your prompt attention to my request.

Sincerely,

Gilmer Commission Advised by Prosecutor to Settle with, then Sue Reporter over FOIA Lawsuit

The Gilmer County Commission is planning on settling a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against them last month by a Charleston reporter, then bring one of their own against him for filing it.

During its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 10, 2012, the Gilmer County Prosecutor Gerry Hough briefly discussed the FOIA lawsuit Lawrence J. Smith, a reporter with The West Virginia Record, filed against the commission, and County Clerk Jean Butcher on December 23, 2011.

In his suit, Smith asked Judge Richard Facemire to compel Butcher and the commission to release details of the settlement reached in October in the lawsuit Summit Bank filed against Gilmer County Clerk (Beverly Marks) for improperly recording lien information for properties in the Rivers’ View subdivision.

The subject of Smith’s lawsuit, while not on the agenda, was broached by County Prosecuting Attorney Gerry Hough, who was on the agenda to present a check for back taxes from Union Corp.

Neither the commission nor Butcher responded to Smith’s request for the settlement details prior to filing his lawsuit as they did not have it, Hough said.  However, now that they do, he asked the commission’s permission to send it to him in exchange for him agreeing to dismiss his suit.

All three commissioners, President Brian Kennedy, David Hess, and Darrell Ramsey said nothing, but nodded their heads in agreement.

Also, the commissioners gave their approval to Hough filing a lawsuit against Smith after he agrees to dismiss his FOIA suit.  The suit, Hough said, would be to teach him a lesson about filing what he deemed to be a “frivolous” lawsuit.

“It is necessary to do this because we cannot allow the press to make the county look bad,“ Hough said.

The commissioners again only nodded their heads in agreement.

Then the commissioners entered into executive session with Gerry Hough.

After that, Hough left the meeting.  Prior to him leaving, nothing was disclosed about how much the county paid to settle the Summit Bank lawsuit.

G-FYI™: Gilmer Schools Coalition News – 01.09.12

Following is the letter sent by Gilmer Schools Coalition (GSC) to the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) requesting answers to questions:

G-FYI™: Legal Action against Clerk and Gilmer County Commission for Withholding Information

West Virginia’s Freedom of Information ACT (FOIA) was enacted to give citizens access to information to which they are entitled.

Elements of the act were detailed eloquently by Mr. Darrell McGraw, the Attorney General of West Virginia (Google WV FOIA).

The ACT’s purpose is to keep citizens fully informed to enable them to independently evaluate performances of our public institutions and its officials.

Gilmer County has a sordid history of willful withholding of information by its officials.

However, with emergence of the information age, veils of secrecy are beginning to unravel.

For a prime example, Mr. Lawrence Smith, an investigative reporter for the West Virginia Record known as West Virginia’s Legal Journal, initiated legal action to achieve disclosure of the County Commission’s settlement of a recent lawsuit.

The defendants in Mr. Smith’s court filing are Ms. Jean Butcher and the Gilmer County Commission.

The filing related to the aftermath of the River’s View housing project by the Gilmer Housing Partners, LLC for which Terry Butcher and Timothy Butcher, local attorneys, are key individuals.

After construction occurred at the site a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court. The allegation was that there was improper recording of lien information for the property.

The Commission as one of the defendants lost the case to come under a Federal order to pay a penalty, but details about the penalty were kept secret from citizens.

Mr. Smith requested information three times. After refusals to respond, he filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief with Judge Facemire to plea for disclosure of the information.

A copy of the filing and the third FOIA request are provided below.

In his third request, Mr. Smith stated that the penalty for noncompliance is “punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, 20 days in jail or both.”

Citizens await Judge Facemire’s important decision.

The issue is crucial for citizens because without full disclosure of essential information, accountability, the bulwark of our democracy, is impossible.

Accordingly, if corrective measures are not ordered by Judge Facemire to keep Gilmer County’s citizens informed,  checks and balances, particularly those exercisable in our voting booths, will remain stifled to allow business as usual to reign.

 

 

Lawsuit filed on Friday, December 23, 2011

Click H E R E for actual copy of the Lawsuit

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GILMER COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
Jay Lawrence Smith, an individual
Plaintiff,
                                                                                                                      Civil Action No. [11-C-29]
v.
                                                                                                                      Honorable [Richard A. Facemire], Judge
Jean Butcher, in her capacity as
Clerk of the Gilmer County Commission, and
The Gilmer County Commission, a political subdivision,
                                Defendants

COMPLAINT FOF DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Now comes the Plaintiff, Jay Lawrence Smith, who states as follows:

 

PARTIES

        1. Jay Lawrence Smith (“Smith”) is a resident of Hurricane, Putnam County, West
Virginia.

        2. Smith is a free-lance legal researcher and journalist whose principal place of business is in South Charleston, Kanawha County, West Virginia.

        3. Defendant Jean Butcher (“Butcher”) is a resident of Gilmer County, West Virginia and was, at all times relevant hereto, the Clerk of the Gilmer County Commission.

        4. Defendant Gilmer County Commission (“the Commission”) is a political subdivision organized under the laws of the state of West Virginia with an address of 10 Howard St., Glenville, WV 26351.

        5. Though independently elected by popular vote, the Clerk is the custodian of all records held by the Commission including, but not limited to, deeds, deeds of trust, Uniform Commercial Code filings and UCC fixture filings.

        6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter and over the parties.

        7. As the conduct complained of, and as more particularly set forth herein, occurred in
Gilmer County, this matter is properly venued with this Court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

        8. Smith restates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-7

        9. On or about Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2011, Smith learned of a settlement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia between the Defendants and Summit Community Bank (“Summit”), a foreign corporation located at 100 West Jubal Early Dr., Winchester, VA, 22601 (Case number ll-cv-39).

        10. After it was named as a co-defendant in a breach of contract suit hi the district court on March 10, 2010, Summit filed a third-party complaint against the Defendants on Oct. 25, 2010.
In its third-party complaint, Summit alleged defendants bore responsibility for it being named in the original complaint as the Clerk failed to properly record the names of both owners of at least one if not more parcels of property on a UCC fixture filing.

        11. Said property/properties was/were previously owned by Gilmer Housing Partners (“GHP”), a domestic corporation located at One Pioneer Drive, Glenville, WV, 26351, and sold to New Horizon Home Sales (“New Horizon”), a domestic corporation located at 3048 Hinton Rd., Athens, WV 26651, and its president, Jack Jones (“Jones”). Also, said property/properties is/are located in the River’s View subdivision along W. Va. Route 5 near the Otterbein United Methodist Church outside of Glenville.

        12. Upon learning of the settlement, Smith called Edward McDevitt (W. Va. Bar I.D. #2437) (“McDevitt”), counsel for Summit to inquire about the terms.

        13. When contacted, McDevitt said ‘“You’ll need to speak with their [Butcher and the Commission’s] attorney about that.‘“

        14. Upon concluding his call with McDevitt, Smith called Wendy Greve (W. Va. Bar I.D. # 6599) (“Greve”), counsel for Butcher and the Commission in the third-party complaint, about the terms of the settlement as instructed by McDevitt.  When he was unable to speak with Greve, Smith left her a voice-message requesting it.

        15. Out of an abundance of caution, the next day, Wednesday, Oct. 12, Smith sent a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to Butcher.  In his request, Smith sought the following information:

            A. The terms of the settlement.

            B. The total payout made by the county either through its general revenue fund or a third party.

            C. The names of all third parties making said payments.

            D. The total payout made by either the county or any third parties to the lawyer(s) or law firm(s) representing the county (Attached as Exhibit “A”).

        16. The FOIA request was sent to Butcher and the Commission via e-mail, fax and U.S. Mail.

        17. When Smith failed to receive a reply from Butcher within the statutory five business days, Smith sent her a second FOIA request dated Oct. 22, 2011.  The request was again sent to Butcher and the Commission via e-mail, fax and U.S. Mail (Attached as Exhibit “B”).

        18. When Smith, once again, failed to receive a reply from Butcher within another five business days of his second FOIA request, he sent her a third request dated Nov. 11, 2011.  The third request was once again sent to Butcher and the Commission via e-mail, fax and U.S. Mail (Attached as Exhibit “C”).

        19. In his third FOIA request, Smith notified Butcher, and the Commission that if the information he requested was not forthcoming by Wednesday, Nov. 16, he would bring a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief before this Court.

        20. On multiple occasions following submission of all his FOIA requests, Smith attempted to avoid filing the instant suit by making repeated phone calls to Greve seeking the terms of the settlement.  All the calls he made to Greve were routed to voice-mail, and never returned.

        21. The failure of Butcher, the Commission and Greve to provide Smith the details of the settlement in Summit’s third-party complaint against the Defendants has prompted the instant suit.

ARGUMENTS

        22. Smith restates the allegations in paragraphs 1 -21.

        23. The West Virginia FOIA law, W. Va. Code 298-1-3(1), states: “Every person has a right to inspect or copy any public record of a public body in this State, except as otherwise expressly provided by section four [29B-1-4] of this article.“

        24. Defendants have not provided a reason under 29B-1 -4(1) as to why Smith cannot see the information first requested in his Oct. 12, 2011, FOIA.

        25. Instead, Defendants have wantonly, maliciously, deliberately and vexatiously failed to respond to any of Smith’s FOIA requests.

        26. Smith’s interest in this action outweighs any arguments for non-disclosure.
Moreover, the information requested is public information.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Court:

        1. declare that the Defendant’s refusal to disclose the records requested by Smith is
unlawful;

        2. grant injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants from withholding records without justification and ordering production to Smith of records improperly withheld;

        3. grant a permanent injunction requiring the Defendants to undergo training for better understanding of W. Va. Code 29B, and implement a plan for more timely responses to FOIA responses;

        4. award Smith his costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in this action, as required by W. Va. Code 29B-1-7; and

        5. grant Smith such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Jay Lawrence Smith
Pro se

5312 MacCorkle Ave., S.W.
#238
South Charleston, WV 25309
(304) 397-6075

 

 

Exhibit “A”

Click H E R E for actual copy of the Exhibit A – First Request

 

12 October 2011

Jean Butcher, Clerk
Gilmer County Commission
10 Howard St. Glenville, WV 26351

Dear Ms. Butcher:

Pursuant to the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (W. Va. Code 29B-1-1, et. seq.), I request access to the following information:

            • All documents related to the settlement in the following lawsuit:

1. Summit Community Bank v. the Clerk of the Gilmer County Commission (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, case number 10-cv-39).
The documents shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

        1. The terms of the settlement.

        2. The total payout made by the county either through its general revenue fund or a third party.

        3. The names of all third parties making said payments.

        4. The total payout made by either the county or any third parties to the lawyer(s) or law firm(s) representing the county.

As required by the Act, I expect your response within five business days. Should you chose to deny all, or part, of this request, please cite the specific part of the Code for your denial.

Once this information is available, I can be contacted at the addresses or phone number below. I thank you, Ms. Butcher, for taking the time to respond to this request.

Sincerely,

Lawrence J. Smith

cc: Charles D. Hess, president, Gilmer County Commission Gerald Hough, Gilmer County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office

5312 MacCorkle Ave., S.W.
#238
South Charleston, WV 25309

(304) 397-6075 (phone)
Sent via e-mail, U.S. Mail and fax

Exhibit “B”

Click H E R E for actual copy of the Exhibit B – Second Request

22 October 2011

Jean Butcher, Clerk
Gilmer County Commission
10 Howard St. Glenville, WV 26351

Dear Ms. Butcher:

Pursuant to the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (W. Va. Code 29B-1-1, et. seq.), I request access to the following information:

            • All documents related to the settlement in the following lawsuit:

        1.  Summit Community Bank v. the Clerk of the Gilmer County Commission (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, case number 10-cv-39).

The documents shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

        1. The terms of the settlement.

        2. The total payout made by the county either through its general revenue fund or a third party.

        3. The names of all third parties making said payments.

        4. The total payout made by either the county or any third parties to the lawyer(s) or law firm(s) representing the county.

This is a second request for information.

As required by the Act, I expect your response within five business days. Should you chose to deny all, or part, of this request, please cite the specific part of the Code for your denial.

Once this information is available, I can be contacted at the addresses or phone number below. I thank you, Ms. Butcher, for taking the time to respond to this request.

Sincerely,

Lawrence J. Smith

cc: Charles D. Hess, president, Gilmer County Commission Gerald Hough, Gilmer County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office Wendy Greve, Esq., Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown and Poe, LLC

5312 MacCorkle Ave., S.W.
#238
South Charleston, WV 25309

(304) 397-6075 (phone)
Sent via e-mail, U.S. Mail and fax

 

 

Exhibit “C”

Click H E R E for actual copy of the Exhibit C – Third Request

11 November 2011

Jean Butcher, Clerk
Gilmer County Commission
10 Howard St. Glenville, WV 26351

Dear Ms. Butcher:

Pursuant to the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (W. Va. Code 29B-1-1, et. seq.), I request access to the following information:

            • All documents related to the settlement in the following lawsuit:

        1.  Summit Community Bank v. the Clerk of the Gilmer County Commission (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, case number 10-cv-39).

The documents shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

        1. The terms of the settlement.

        2. The total payout made by the county either through its general revenue fund or a third party.

        3. The names of all third parties making said payments.

        4. The total payout made by either the county or any third parties to the lawyer(s) or law firm(s) representing the county.

This is a third, and final request for information. Please be aware willful failure to comply with the Act is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, 20 days in jail or both.

In order to avoid the county incurring additional liability, please provide the requested information no later than Wednesday, Nov. 16.

Once this information is available, it can be sent to me at the addresses below. I thank you, Ms. Butcher, for taking the time to respond to this request.

Sincerely,

Lawrence J. Smith

cc: Charles D. Hess, president, Gilmer County Commission Gerald Hough, Gilmer County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office Wendy Greve, Esq., Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown and Poe, LLC Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin

Del. Tim Manchin, chairman, House Political Subdivisions Committee Del. Linda Sumner, minority vice-chairwoman, House Political Subdivisions Committee

Sen. Herb Snyder, chairman, Senate Government Organization Committee Sen. Donna Boley, minority vice-chairwoman, Senate Government Organization Committee Sen. Joseph M. Minard, Committee member

5312 MacCorkle Ave., S.W.
#238
South Charleston, WV 25309

Sent via e-mail, U.S. Mail and fax

G-FYI™: Criminal Complaint Filed against Deputy Jones and His Horseplay on a Civilian

Criminal Complaint Charges has been filed against the Gilmer County Sheriff Deputy Cason Jones for improper use of his Taser Gun on a civilian.

To read more about the incident click   H E R E for previous report.

The following is the criminal complaint: 

State of West Virginia vs. Cason Shaun Jones

I, the undersigned complainant, upon my oath or affirmation, state the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

On or about 10/09/11 in Gilmer W.Va. Code (cite specific section, subsection, and/or subdivision as applicable) the defendant did (state statutory language of offense) 61-2-9(c) Battery:

If any person unlawfully and intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another or unlawfully and intentionally causes physical harm to another person.

Misdemeanor NMT 12 months or NMT $500.00 or both.

I further state that this complaint is based on the following facts: On Friday October 9, 2011, the victim Melissa Marie Hess was at the Gilmer County Fire Department in Glenville, WV, commonly known as Station 1.

The victim advised there were several people at the fire department on this day getting things ready for fire prevention week. The victim advised the people there were joking around and laughing. The victim advised the defendant Cason Jones, said “I had something in my hair; he was going to pull it out.“ The victim advised she said no, she was going to take her hair down because it was clipped to the top of her head.

The victim then advised the defendant said “it was a lady bug”. At that point the victim advised she told the defendant to get it out because she was allergic. The victim advised at that point she realized there was no bug, the defendant just pulled out three or four strands of hair. The victim realized the defendant was joking.

The victim advised this did not bother her. The victim further went onto state everyone was having fun and talking. The victim advised shortly before the defendant was ready to leave, everyone was still in good humor. The victim stated she told the defendant “you pulled out some of my hair but at least I have hair”. The victim advised she went to pat the defendant on the head, she never made contact, then he dry stunned her on her arm with a Taser. The victim advised she did not say anything about the incident at the time because, her husband had said he would whip the defendant if he tased anyone.

The victim advised she received an injury from this dry stun. She advised she had what looked like two snake bite marks and it stayed red for a week. The victim advised this dry stun got her between her wrist and elbow, and her arm stayed red for the rest of the night.

The victim further advised the dry stun did not last for long, “it was really fast, it kind of went like zip, it was long enough to know I didn’t like it”.

The above crime occurred in Gilmer County, WV.

Sgt. J. A. Simmons, WV State Police
1300 Harrison Avenue Elkins, WV 26241
11.30.11

G-FYI™: The Gilmer Free Press Bookmark

If you use a Bookmark to Connect to The Gilmer Free Press, please delete your bookmark, then connect to The Gilmer Free Press manually, and set a new Bookmark.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

Thank you for using The Gilmer Free Press - “For You, By You”

It is always a good idea to delete your temporary internet files periodically.

G-FYI™: A Suggestion and A Solution - Troy/Alum Bridge School

Dear Mr. Manchin,

I live in Gilmer County, with part of our property in Lewis County.  I have been following the “school problem” in this county for several years and I cannot imagine why someone hasn’t thought of this:

Since the economy is not in the best shape and money is tight everywhere, instead of building a new school to combine Troy and Alum Bridge, why not make any needed changes at Troy School and use it for the combined school.

The building is in good condition and there is plenty of land behind the school to move the parking off the road (which I understand is one of the things the state does not like about it).  If the state doesn’t want children walking from one building to another, a covered walkway could easily be constructed across the driveway area.  I have never heard anyone complain about the gym being in a separate building, other than the state.

It seems to me to be totally inefficient to keep closing small schools to “save money” when the cost of fuel to transport students is one of the major costs of education.  Children learned quite well when schools were smaller and close enough they could walk to them.  With all the modern technology, there is no need for a new, fancy building to offer everything any child could possibly need in the way of education!

30 years ago, I was living in the city of Lancaster, PA, when someone came up with a “lets close all the little elementary schools and put all the kids in one “efficient” school.“  I was one of the main players in a parent movement to stop that idea in its tracks.  One parent was an environmental engineer and he did energy assessments on all the buildings in the city.  The cheapest one to maintain and heat was the oldest!  Wharton Elementary, which my sons attended, was built in 1895.  All the little schools are still there and this past year, an addition was put onto Wharton School.

Most people that I have talked to in this area are very upset about any changes other than upgrading the existing elementary schools.  After the last fiasco when 2 schools were proposed and the bond issue was defeated, it will be very difficult to get taxpayers in Gilmer County to agree to destroy the present set-up of 4 elementary schools.

Karen Pennebaker
XXXX XXXXX XXX
Troy, WV 26443

Photo of Wharton School attached.

Wharton School

Mr. Manchin’s reply:

Karen,

Thank you for your interest in this important project.

We are in the very early stages of reviewing this project. In fact, we have not received this project or any other as yet. They are due on the November 1st. We will start our due diligence after that date. Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mark A. Manchin
Executive Director

GFP: Commenting Policy Reminder

Once again, we have to remind the readers about the commenting rules:

1) We have to know who you are, even if you want to remain anonymous.

2) You have to complete the verification process in order to have your comment activated.

3) By providing fake e-mail address and fake information you are just wasting time and effort.

4) All comments are the opinion of the authors of the comments and not The Gilmer Free Press.

5) If you do not agree with someone’s opinion you have the same right to express your own. You may wish to set the record straight or ignore it.  A timely response may clear up misunderstandings quickly and avoid distortion of truth.

6) As long as the verification process is complete and the comment does not contain foul language, and is relative to the subject the comment will be activated.

Some people enjoy reading about others in the GFP, but when they become the subject of the discussion, GFP suddenly becomes bad.

It is interesting that those who complain about anonymous comments supply an anonymous signature instead of their real name.

When people commit criminal acts, it is the public’s right to know. If one holds a public office and/or paid by public funds, then it is the public’s right to question their actions.  Otherwise, news sources would be full of feel good stories, poetry, and philanthropy that no one wants to read.  What the public really wants is to be informed, forewarned, and alerted to potential problems that may affect them personally.

Once again, if you feel that any information published by The Gilmer Free Press is not accurate, you are invited to express your part.

G-FYI™: Is Taser Gun a Dangerous Weapon?

And in Gilmer County Sheriff Department a Deputy used it for Horseplay on a Citizen.

When one deputy was asked whether they have had any training on the Taser weapons, the answer was a plain “NO”.

GHP Update: Settlement Reached In Suit Against Gilmer County Clerk

The WV Record Reports:

A tentative settlement has been reached in a lawsuit accusing the Gilmer County Clerk’s Office of improperly recording a financing statement for property in a housing project with ties to Glenville State College.

U.S. District Judge Frederick P. Stamp Jr. on Oct. 11 dismissed a cross claim and third-party complaint Summit Community Bank of Winchester, Va., filed against the clerk’s office last October. Summit’s cross claim and complaint was in response to a breach of contract suit filed against it, New Horizon Home Sales and Gilmer Housing Partners by Textron Financial Corporation in March 2010.

In its complaint, Textron, a Providence, R.I.-based commercial financing firm, alleged New Horizon, an Athens, W.Va.-based modular home dealer, defaulted on paying them for property they helped them acquire in the River’s View subdivision outside of Glenville in 2005 when New Horizon, three years later, sought permanent financing from Summit’s branch in Moorefield. Textron sought judgment against New Horizon, Summit and GHP for $270,166.77, the proceeds from the sale of the initial two lots, and two other lots they helped New Horizon finance.

Records show, GHP was the previous owner of the lots in the River’s View subdivision, located on W.Va. 5 near the Gilmer Federal Corrections Institution. According to the Secretary of State’s Office, GHP is a for-profit corporation whose address is the home of Glenville State College President Peter Barr.

Also, Barr is listed as GHP’s sole incorporator and manager.

In its cross claim, and complaint, Summit said had it not been for a defective Uniform Commercial Code fixture filing recorded by the clerk’s office, they wouldn’t be involved in the suit. Specifically, they alleged the clerk’s office did not follow state law by recording New Horizon as a co-debtor on the fixture filing along with Jack Jones, its president.

Specifically, they alleged when a pre-suit injury was made about New Horizon not being listed as a co-debtor, incoming Clerk Jean Butcher, who replaced the retiring Beverly Marks in last year’s election, said that’s “‘the way it’s been done for years.‘“ Summit sought judgment against the clerk’s office for all costs it incurred in the suit, including attorney’s fees.

When contacted for the terms of the settlement, Summit’s attorney, Edward McDevitt, referred all questions to Wendy Greve, the clerk’s office’s attorney. Greve was unavailable for comment prior to press time.

Prior to the settlement in Summit’s cross claim, and complaint, Stamp on March 15 granted Textron’s motion for summary judgment finding they were the superior lien holder on at least one of the property’s in question. In doing so, Stamp granted Textron possession of it, and ordered New Horizon to pay them the entire judgment plus pre-judgment and .25 percent post-judgment interest.

Records show GHP was dismissed from the suit two weeks later.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 10-cv-39

Click to read the report on The WV Record

~~  By Lawrence Smith – WV Record  ~~

G-FYI™: TO The Citizens and Taxpayers of Gilmer County - RE: Telephone Service at Courthouse

I want to inform the public that the Court House has been having MAJOR telephone problems all week.

Nearly every call we receive gets cut off in middle of conversation. We are not hanging up on you, and when you try to call back the ‘phone does not ring in.

All lines are dead.

I personally have contacted the company every day this week, to no avail.

Please bear with us during this difficult time. It’s a bad situation for us all.

If you need to contact county officials, it may be necessary to personally come to the Court House to see us.

You may contact me at home after 4:30 at 304.462.7241.

Thanks for your patience.

~~  By Karen Elkin, Circuit Clerk ~~

G-FYI™: Breaking News about Gilmer Housing Partners Lawsuit

An out-of-court settlement occurred between the third party plaintiff (Summit Community Bank) and defendants (Jack Jones, the president of New Horizon, and the Office of the Clerk of the County Commission of Gilmer County).

The settlement for Federal Civil Case No. 1:10CV39 was finalized on October 07, 2011.

It is understood that the aforementioned parties agreed to settle differences to mutual satisfaction without the necessity of a jury trial.

Also, it is understood that the principal plaintiff (Textron Financial Corporation) and remaining defendants (Gilmer Housing Partners (GHP), and Jack Jones) have not settled.

Reportedly, Dr. Peter Barr, the president of Glenville State College is the GHP’s president and its trustees are Timothy Butcher and R. Terry Butcher, partners of the local Butcher & Butcher law firm.

Timothy Butcher is a member of the College’s Board of Governors and an official in the College’s Foundation.

R. Terry Butcher served on the Board of Governors when the GHP was formed.

Information for the settlement with the Office of the Clerk of Gilmer County’s Commission and future developments with other named defendants will be provided to the public when court records are received.

~~  The Gilmer Free Press ~~