West Virginia House of Delegates considers changes to public records access
House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, lead sponsor of House Bill 3412, explains to lawmakers how his bill would exempt the Legislature from requirements of the Freedom of Information Act Wednesday, March 26, 2025, in Charleston, W.Va. (Perry Bennett | West Virginia Legislative Photography)
The West Virginia House of Delegates is considering a bill that would allow the Legislature to write its own rules for disclosing public records, but House Speaker Roger Hanshaw said the intent is not to hide records.
Journalists, researchers and members of the public use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain access to lawmakers' emails, presentations and more that can shed light on how decisions are being made. The emails can reveal what lobbyists or special interest groups are involved in bill making. Some communications are exempt.
House Bill 3412, sponsored by Hanshaw, R-Clay, would exempt the Legislature from requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, if it adopts its own rules.
The House Rules Committee reviewed the measure Wednesday.
Current state FOIA law does not differentiate between the state's court system, the executive branch and the legislature, Hanshaw said. He told committee members individuals often use FOIA to access drafts of bills that are never introduced.
FOIA laws have existed since 1966.
Hanshaw wants the House to write rules that make it clear to the public what is and is not a public record.
'One of the objections sought to be achieved by this particular piece of legislation is clarification of what is and isn't a legislative record that can actually be reachable by those who simply seek access to legislative records,' he said.
Doug Skaff, interim director of the West Virginia Press Association, appeared before lawmakers to question if the bill would affect journalists' access to legislative records.
'We just want to make sure that these laws provide a legal basis and a framework that government records, meetings and all the doings within the public body of this Capitol is available to recognized media outlets in this state,' Skaff said. 'We think we owe it to the people of West Virginia to discuss and spread the information that happens under this dome.'
Hanshaw said that he views the media as partners who disseminate the information about what happens at the Capitol.
'We think we have a pretty constructive relationship with our media partners right now … we realize that the press is not the only user of the Freedom of Information statute,' Hanshaw said.
'We would be supportive as long as it doesn't restrict the right of the media to do their job,' Skaff responded.
Ann Ali, deputy chief of staff and communications director for the House of Delegates, said in an email that the intent of the bill is not to hide public records and that Hanshaw wants any legislative records currently available to the public to remain available to the public.
'However — the intent is also to exempt the Legislature from FOIA and to adopt open records rules the Legislature would follow, because there may be instances when FOIA doesn't fit the specifics of what the Legislature is or does,' she said. If the change is adopted, people would cite a rule rather than the Freedom of Information Act in a request for public documents, she said.
While House Minority Leader Sean Hornbuckle has concern about the bill, he feels that it would still permit the media to access records for reporting.
'It appears it has to do more with people outside the state who might have ulterior motives. I do feel better [about it],' said Hornbuckle, D-Cabell.
The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia also has concerns with the bill.
'First the Senate limited recording in the chamber. Then, the House did away with public hearings. Now they want to exempt the Legislature entirely from open records laws,' ACLU-WV Advocacy Director Rusty Williams said in a statement. 'They won't be satisfied until they're passing their harmful, extremist agenda entirely in private. Enough is enough. We have a right to know what our elected leaders are up to.'
In order for the change to go into effect, the bill would first have to become law. Next, the House would have to create then adopt its own rules in order for the new FOIA rules to go into effect. Without a rule, the default would be the current FOIA statute, Hanshaw said.
The Senate could adopt the rules to become regulations that apply to both bodies, according to Hanshaw.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why thousands of NCAA athletes might wait over a year for share of $2.8 billion settlement
The attorney who negotiated the $2.8 billion legal settlement for the NCAA said Friday that thousands of former athletes due to receive damages could have to wait months or maybe more than a year to get paid while appeals play out. Rakesh Kilaru, who served as the NCAA's lead counsel for the House settlement that was approved last week, told The Associated Press an appeal on Title IX grounds filed this week will hold up payments due to around 390,000 athletes who signed on to the class-action settlement. He said he has seen appeals take up to 18 months in the California-based federal court where this case is playing out, though that isn't necessarily what he expects. 'I will say that we, and I'm sure the plaintiffs, are going to push,' Kilaru said. A schedule filed this week calls for briefs related to the appeal to be filed by Oct. 3. Kilaru doesn't expect anyone on the defendant or plaintiff side to file for extensions in the case 'because every day the appeal goes on is a day damages don't go to the student-athletes.' He said while the appeal is ongoing, the NCAA will pay the money into a fund that will be ready to go when needed. The other critical parts of the settlement -- the part that allows each school to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with current players and set up an enforcement arm to regulate it -- are in effect regardless of appeals. 'I think everyone thought it was important and good for this new structure to start working because it does have a lot of benefits for students,' Kilaru said. 'But it's very common for damages to be delayed in this way for the simple reason that you don't want to make payments to people that you can't recover' if the appeal is successful. A group of eight female athletes filed the appeal. Their attorney, Ashlyn Hare, said they supported settlement of the case 'but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law.' "The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion,' Hare said. Kilaru agreed with plaintiff attorneys who have argued that Title IX violations are outside the scope of the lawsuit. Other objections to the settlement came from athletes who said they were damaged by roster limits set by the terms. One attorney representing a group of those objectors, Steven Molo, said they were reviewing Wilken's decision and exploring options. ___ AP college sports:


San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Why thousands of NCAA athletes might wait over a year for share of $2.8 billion settlement
The attorney who negotiated the $2.8 billion legal settlement for the NCAA said Friday that thousands of former athletes due to receive damages could have to wait months or maybe more than a year to get paid while appeals play out. Rakesh Kilaru, who served as the NCAA's lead counsel for the House settlement that was approved last week, told The Associated Press an appeal on Title IX grounds filed this week will hold up payments due to around 390,000 athletes who signed on to the class-action settlement. He said he has seen appeals take up to 18 months in the California-based federal court where this case is playing out, though that isn't necessarily what he expects. 'I will say that we, and I'm sure the plaintiffs, are going to push,' Kilaru said. A schedule filed this week calls for briefs related to the appeal to be filed by Oct. 3. Kilaru doesn't expect anyone on the defendant or plaintiff side to file for extensions in the case 'because every day the appeal goes on is a day damages don't go to the student-athletes.' He said while the appeal is ongoing, the NCAA will pay the money into a fund that will be ready to go when needed. The other critical parts of the settlement -- the part that allows each school to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with current players and set up an enforcement arm to regulate it -- are in effect regardless of appeals. 'I think everyone thought it was important and good for this new structure to start working because it does have a lot of benefits for students,' Kilaru said. 'But it's very common for damages to be delayed in this way for the simple reason that you don't want to make payments to people that you can't recover' if the appeal is successful. A group of eight female athletes filed the appeal. Their attorney, Ashlyn Hare, said they supported settlement of the case 'but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law.' "The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion,' Hare said. Kilaru agreed with plaintiff attorneys who have argued that Title IX violations are outside the scope of the lawsuit. Other objections to the settlement came from athletes who said they were damaged by roster limits set by the terms. One attorney representing a group of those objectors, Steven Molo, said they were reviewing Wilken's decision and exploring options.


Chicago Tribune
32 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Why thousands of NCAA athletes might wait more than a year for share of $2.8 billion settlement
The attorney who negotiated the $2.8 billion legal settlement for the NCAA said Friday that thousands of former athletes due to receive damages could have to wait months or maybe more than a year to get paid while appeals play out. Rakesh Kilaru, who served as the NCAA's lead counsel for the House settlement that was approved last week, told The Associated Press an appeal on Title IX grounds filed this week will hold up payments due to around 390,000 athletes who signed on to the class-action settlement. He said he has seen appeals take up to 18 months in the California-based federal court where this case is playing out, though that isn't necessarily what he expects. 'I will say that we, and I'm sure the plaintiffs, are going to push,' Kilaru said. A schedule filed this week calls for briefs related to the appeal to be filed by Oct. 3. Kilaru doesn't expect anyone on the defendant or plaintiff side to file for extensions in the case 'because every day the appeal goes on is a day damages don't go to the student-athletes.' He said while the appeal is ongoing, the NCAA will pay the money into a fund that will be ready to go when needed. The other critical parts of the settlement — the part that allows each school to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with current players and set up an enforcement arm to regulate it — are in effect regardless of appeals. 'I think everyone thought it was important and good for this new structure to start working because it does have a lot of benefits for students,' Kilaru said. 'But it's very common for damages to be delayed in this way for the simple reason that you don't want to make payments to people that you can't recover' if the appeal is successful. A group of eight female athletes filed the appeal. Their attorney, Ashlyn Hare, said they supported settlement of the case 'but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law.' 'The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion,' Hare said. Kilaru agreed with plaintiff attorneys who have argued that Title IX violations are outside the scope of the lawsuit. Other objections to the settlement came from athletes who said they were damaged by roster limits set by the terms. One attorney representing a group of those objectors, Steven Molo, said they were reviewing Wilken's decision and exploring options.