The impeachment trial for Justice Beth Walker began at 9 a.m. Monday in the state Senate chamber, with senators serving as the Court of Impeachment and Judge Paul Farrell presiding.
Updates here:
3:20 p.m. Testimony for today has wrapped up. The House managers say they have one more witness, who was subpoenaed for 9 a.m. Tuesday.
So we are adjourned for today. Resuming Tuesday.
3:15 p.m. McCuskey takes the stand
State Auditor J.B. McCuskey is called as a witness.
2:48 p.m. Court finances
Next up is Sue Racer Troy, chief financial officer for the court’s financial division. She’s being questioned by Marsha Kauffman, counsel for the House Judiciary Committee.
Kauffman is asking about the court’s policies on home offices, inventory control, etc. The point is what influence (or not) Walker has had on policies to control the court.
2:22 p.m. Legislative investigations
After taking a break for a few minutes, testimony resumed with Justin Robinson, who works for the Legislative Post Audits division. He is talking about investigations into various aspects of the Supreme Court by legislative staff over this past half-year.
Some of what Robinson is being asked has to do with policies that are in place, not in place or have considered to be in place to govern the court.
Some of those have to do with travel and renovations.
There was also talk, again, about the working lunches.
On the restaurants that provided the food for the working lunches, Robinson was asked to describe where they are on the price hierarchy: “They’re a little bit higher than your Outback, Chili’s.”
1:36 p.m. Followup questions from senators
Shott has finished with Walker. Now senators may write down questions for the presiding judge to ask Walker.
One question had to do with whether justices may take per diem.
Another has to do with Walker’s regrets over accepting taxpayer-funded lunches.
More questions: Did Walker request a study on remodeling offices or on taxpayer-funded lunches?
Senators are writing down their questions on paper, then Senate staff are collecting them and taking them to the presiding judge to read aloud. Doesn’t seem totally efficient for clarity or followups or even handwriting legibility, but it’s the method.
1:26 p.m. Justice Walker’s cross-examination by her own counsel concludes
“I want to apologize for being here. I regret so much the mistakes I made, and I’m sorry. I need to apologize to the taxpayers and to you, so I want to apologize for all of this. I have learned from my mistakes to be sure. I think we can restore public trust in the judiciary. I appreciate your consideration.”
She is being asked some followup questions by House Judiciary Chairman John Shott.
Following up on the lunch issue, Walker says to Shott, “I didn’t want taxpayers to buy my lunch. It took me too long to come to that realization.”
1:24 p.m. Lunch
Walker says her experience in the private sector sometimes included employer-provided lunches.
Walker talks about emails among justices about the state-paid lunches. Justice Workman wrote that she’d called this practice into question previously. Justice Ketchum wrote that the expense was justifiable.
1:05 p.m. Office talk
On office renovation, Walker says she “was not impressed by the renovation by Justice Davis. I commented ‘that Cass Gilbert must be rolling over in his grave.’”
She says she wanted her office to be a place where people would feel comfortable coming in to meet.
1:02 p.m. Walker’s authority
Recent testimony has been about how much authority Justice Walker actually had on the court.
There was a question from her lawyer, Hissam, about why she had never been chief justice. That produced some interesting testimony about the vote to remove Allen Loughry as chief justice and to pick a new chief.
There were three votes in private session for Justice Workman as the new chief, one for Walker and one for Loughry. But Walker says she initially had Ketchum’s vote, which at first resulted in a tie.
“There were concerns that I didn’t have enough experience,” Walker says.
12:51 The topic turns to Canterbury
The topic now is fired Supreme Court Administrator Steve Canterbury. Walker says justices Loughry and Workman felt he wasn’t doing a very good job. “I trusted them that their concerns were legitimate.”
Canterbury was fired in early 2017, about the same time Walker was joining the court.
Walker says the court lacked in human resources components. She thought it didn’t speak well of Canterbury as administrative director.
Walker says of Canterbury’s performance, “There was a lot of spending that was indefensible. It was inappropriate, it was just too much, including my office, sadly.”
12:36 p.m. Justice Walker has returned to the stand, now being questioned by her attorney, Mike Hissam.
“I regret the office remodeling. I was not a good steward of the taxpayer dollars,” Walker says.
She also regrets receiving the working lunches at taxpayer expense.
And on impeachment itself, Walker says “I think of stealing, lying and corruption, and I don’t think I’ve done any of those things.”
11:33 a.m. We’ve hit a lunch break here in #WVimpeachment.
Supposed to start up again at 12:30. At that point, attorney Mike Hissam will question Justice Walker.
10:31 a.m. Justice Walker herself has taken the stand.
Walker is being questioned by House Judiciary Chairman John Shott.
He is asking her about her work history with employment law and relating it to the working lunches the Supreme Court had at taxpayer expense.
Walker says when the issue of the cost of the lunches came to her attention, she asked then-Chief Justice Loughry about whether there was a way to tally the cost. She says he told her no.
When a total amount came out through WCHS-TV reporting, Walker says, she offered to pay back one fifth of the cost.
Shott: “So you weren’t concerned with the propriety of what you were doing? You were only concerned about the amount?”
Walker: “I should never have participated in these lunches in the first place. But I do not believe they were illegal.”
Shott asks whether any of the lunches were from McDonalds, Hardees Wendy’s or even from the Capitol cafeteria or if they were instead from upper scale restaurants. Spoiler: the invoices showed they were from nice restaurants like Soho’s or South Hills Market.
Shott: “Did that not cause you concern?”
Walker: “Looking back, I should’ve been more concerned.”
Testimony moved swiftly from Walker’s outsourcing of a written opinion to private counsel for $10,000 and then into her office renovation.
Taxpayers paid $130,654 to upgrade Justice Walker’s chambers even though they were renovated during the previous term of Justice Brent Benjamin, at a cost of $264,000.
“I am quite aware of that, and I regret it sincerely,” Walker said.
Walker says when she inherited the office, there were two chairs, a table and a couple of lamps.
Pictures are being shown of Walker’s office before she moved in to it. But a picture was displayed upside down. And then Shott had a podium with his papers just fall over. Technical problems.
10:11 a.m. The presiding Judge has called a 15-minute break.
After that, we’ll start with the first witness. Meanwhile, I will discuss the big picture on “Talkline” with guest host Dave Wilson at 10:33.
Justice Walker herself is said to be the first witness up after the break.
9:49 a.m. Now up is Mike Hissam, representing Justice Walker.
Hissam tells senators: “We are eager to present our case to you because we are confident that, at the end of it, you will see that Beth Walker did not engage in any conduct that would justify the extraordinary remedy of removing her from office against the will of the voters.”
On the working lunches, Hissam says, “Even as we sit here today – after all of this time and all of these proceedings – it is still the case that only Justice Walker has stepped up and paid the State back every bit of what was spent on her lunches.”
Hissam notes that Walker was fairly new to the court, elected in 2016, and did not serve as chief justice:
“Unlike other officials in our State Constitution, the power of a single Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals who is not the Chief Justice is tightly constrained.”
He adds, “You will also learn that, when it comes to overall administration of the Court or the statewide judicial system, a single justice is no more powerful than she is to decide an appeal where she is outvoted 4 to 1.”
Here’s a key part of Hissam’s opening statement, describing the challenges of Article XIV, the maladministration article that Walker faces:
I have to admit that, Article XIV – the sole article of impeachment against Justice Walker – is difficult to parse. It is everything, and nothing. It is a catch-all mishmash of all sorts of administrative practices, many of which Beth never had anything to do with, like home offices and senior status judgment payments. We know Article XIV can’t concern Beth’s office renovations, because the House rejected an article of impeachment dealing with exactly those issues. To further complicate things, Article XIV refers to events that occurred before Beth joined the court. And it refers to other matters only within the purview of the Chief Justice or the Court’s administrative staff – positions she never held.
9:22 a.m. Opening statements
File
John Shott
Opening statements are starting, beginning with House Judiciary Chairman John Shott, who will take the lead on presenting the House’s case on Walker.
Shott says the facts of the case should not be heard in a vacuum and the House managers will apply context about what has been going on in the state, particularly its financial condition during the years being discussed.
Shott: “With respect to Justice Walker, she was and is the newest member of the court involved in these proceedings.
“Our position is she came into an atmosphere of entitlement, an atmosphere of cavalier indifference — and its also our position she was uniquely qualified to realize the absence of policies, the atmosphere of reckless spending, of lackadaisical approach to the protection of taxpayer assets.”
He adds: “She didn’t waste any time joining the party. She immediately became infected by the same atmosphere.”
Shott contends Walker’s own attitude continued until the court received a Freedom of Information request by Kennie Bass of WCHS.
“Her behavior continued unabated until the light of the press.”
Shott’s opening statement asked one prevailing question: “Did the general public receive a benefit from these expenditures?”
His discussed the working lunches that justices had been taking.
The state Auditor’s transparency website shows that over the past year, the West Virginia court system as a whole — not just the Supreme Court — has spent $277,487.43 on hospitality expenses, mostly relating to food.
A report from WCHS-TV from earlier this year concluded the court spent $19,324 in public funds in 2016 and 2017 on meals for justices, clerks, administrators, security personnel and other staffers.
Over those two years, the court ordered out 108 times, buying a total of 1,141 lunches. Each instance cost about $179.
Shott says that “contributed to the further loss of confidence by the public in the court.”
Shott also makes reference to Walker contracting out an opinion that was assigned to her at a cost of $10,000.
Her office renovation also came up.
Taxpayers paid $130,654 to upgrade Justice Walker’s chambers even though they were renovated during the previous term of Justice Brent Benjamin, at a cost of $264,000.
“I think you’ll conclude the office was perfectly functional,” Shott said.
The state Constitution lays out the grounds for impeachment but only in the broadest terms: “Any officer of the state may be impeached for maladministration, corruption, incompetency, gross immorality, neglect of duty, or any high crime or misdemeanor.
9:20 a.m. Judge dismisses Walker’s motion to dismiss her impeachment charge
Justice Walker had a motion for the charge against her to be dismissed. That motion was dismissed by Judge Farrell just now. Here’s more about what her motion had said.
9:18 a.m. No testimony from Judge Wilson
There was a sub-dispute last week over the testimony of Judge Ronald Wilson, who heads the Judicial Investigation Commission. An agreement reached over the weekend means there will be an affidavit, not testimony.
Here’s more about the dispute over Judge Wilson’s testimony.
9:12 a.m. The article that Walker faces is being read aloud.
The articles of impeachment are available here.
Walker, who has been on the Supreme Court since 2017, was named in only one of the 11 impeachment articles passed by the House of Delegates. That’s the fewest of any of the justices.
That article accuses all four remaining justices of failing to establish policies about remodeling state offices, travel budgets, computers for home use and framing of personal items.
Essentially, the article claims the justices failed to hold each other accountable. All of the remaining justices were named in that article.
9:17 a.m. No testimony by Judge Wilson
There was a sub-dispute last week over the testimony of Judge Ronald Wilson, who heads the Judicial Investigation Commission. An agreement reached over the weekend means there will be an affidavit, not testimony.
9:06 a.m. Judge Farrell gives instructions
Senators are serving as a jury of impeachment. Judge Farrell is providing instructions meant to encourage impartiality. It’s been hard to avoid media about this, but he is suggesting they avoid going on their cellphones and steer clear of social media.
“This is extremely important not only to Justice Walker but to West Virginia and to all of its citizens.”
He adds, “I urge you all to be West Virginians; not Democrats, not Republicans.”
Farrell suggests this may last three or four days, based on what he’s heard from the attorneys on each side. He suggests each day will end around 5 p.m.
8:30 a.m. Walker arrives, describes confidence
