The West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a television station that was denied a termination letter involving the former Deputy Secretary Jeremiah Samples of the Agency that ran the state’s foster care and substance use support services. The court stated that the public interest in the firing of a high-ranking official outweighed concerns about privacy violations. The letter, penned by former health and human resources Secretary Bill Crouch, was demanded to be released to the television station WSAZ by the appeals court judges. Samples was fired in the midst of intense scrutiny surrounding the department’s operations, which ultimately led to the disassembly of the Health and Human Resources Department into three separate agencies.
After his termination, Samples released a statement criticizing the agency’s struggles in various critical areas, such as child welfare, substance use disorder, and protection of the vulnerable. He alluded to differences with Secretary Crouch regarding these issues and the lack of progress made under his leadership. Additionally, Secretary Crouch accused Samples of misconduct and insubordination in a draft termination letter, claiming that his actions delayed the department in fulfilling its mission. Despite efforts by the agency to prevent the publication of the draft letter, the court ruled in favor of the television station’s First Amendment right to publish it, as it was deemed newsworthy and in the public interest.
The state had initially denied WSAZ’s public records request regarding Samples’ resignation or termination, as well as email correspondence between Samples and Crouch, citing privacy concerns and an exemption to the state open records law. However, in fulfilling another demand from the court, the department inadvertently included an unredacted copy of the draft termination letter in the records provided to WSAZ. This led to further legal battles over the publication of the draft letter, with Samples claiming it contained falsehoods about his work. The appeals court judges stated that the release of the draft letter only strengthened the television station’s argument for the final letter to be made public, as the information related to job function is not meant to be protected by the Freedom of Information Act.
The appeals court emphasized that public officials’ conduct while performing their duties is not the type of information meant to be protected by privacy exemptions in the FOIA. Judge Scarr stated that the purpose of the exemption is to protect individuals from injury and embarrassment resulting from unnecessary disclosure of personal information, rather than information related to job function. The ruling underscored the importance of transparency in government operations, especially when it concerns high-ranking officials in public agencies. The court’s decision to uphold the public’s right to access information related to the conduct of public officials highlights the significance of accountability and oversight in ensuring responsible governance.
