WV House passes FOIA bill with narrow vote. Bill next goes to the Senate.
The House of Delegates approved House Bill 3412 Wednesday with a vote of 58 to 42 on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The bill would allow the Legislature to adopt its own rules for the disclosure of public documents. (Perry Bennett | West Virginia Legislative Photography)
The West Virginia House of Delegates has narrowly passed a bill that would allow the Legislature to set its own rules for disclosing public records. Delegates approved House Bill 3412 with a 58 to 42 vote Wednesday.
The bill, sponsored by House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, would exempt the Legislature from requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, if it adopts its own rules. Some of the discussion included concerns over FOIA requests bogging down the Legislative staff's workload.
A search of the Secretary of State's Office's FOIA database show that, so far this year, five FOIA requests have been made of the Senate and none had been made of the House of Delegates.
Lawmakers who opposed the legislation included Del. Larry Kump, R-Berkeley, who said the bill was the subject of lots of feedback from his constituents. Some of the commentary was that lawmakers who support the bill should not campaign on transparency, and that the public has a right to know what delegates are doing.
'Perhaps the best way I can say it is, I do not like this bill,' Kump said. 'I do not like it. I do not like it at all. Foxes should not be guarding the hen house. I think this bill should fall.'
The Freedom of Information Act allows journalists, researchers and members of the public 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.
Current state FOIA law does not differentiate between the state's court system, the executive branch and the Legislature, Hanshaw told lawmakers when the Rules Committee took up the bill. He told Rules Committee members individuals often use FOIA to access drafts of bills that are never introduced. Hanshaw wants the House to write rules that make it clear to the public what is and is not a public record.
Ann Ali, deputy chief of staff and communications director for the House of Delegates, said previously 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.
The bill states that the Freedom of Information Act stays in effect unless the Legislature enacts its own rules, said Del. Clay Riley, who presented the bill Wednesday.
Dels. Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, and Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, raised concerns about what recourse people who request information but don't get it would have under a legislative rule. Under current law, the person could file a lawsuit for the information.
Riley said he couldn't answer the 'hypothetical question,' because the rules have not been passed yet.
Hansen said he had concerns about the bill.
'There are no guardrails on the rulemaking process other than the fact that we vote on it,' he said. 'We could pass a rule that's similar to what the current statute is. We could pass a rule that's very different and protects all of our records from public disclosure, and that's not right. We should play by the same rules as everybody else in government.'
Riley disagreed with the assertion that the law is more transparent than legislative rules. He pointed to the House making available audio archives of committee meetings as examples of the House being transparent.
'Every vote, every committee meeting, is open to the public,' he said. 'You know, this is a process of where we have the ability to clarify in our rules of which we govern ourselves what is and what isn't, a legislative record. All executive branch documents are not like all legislative branch documents, and for that, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage.'
The bill will next go to the Senate for consideration.
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
25 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
28 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
34 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.
