CHARLESTON, W. Va. – Former Administrative Director of the Courts of West Virginia Steve Canterbury testified before the state's House Judiciary Committee yesterday, answering important questions about the West Virginia Supreme Court's budget.

According to Canterbury, the court padded its budget for years and built up a $29 million surplus by 2012. He said they were anticipating costs, from magistrate raises and remodeling court offices, to costs for family and drug courts.

One big item was a Unified Judicial Application Information System (UJA), which centralized all filings. The system allows every court to know if, for example, another court had filed a domestic violence protective order.

Canterbury, whose testimony was live-streamed, described UJA as expensive and behind schedule.

"It was pretty clear that over the next few years, certain monies would be spent, because they had approved the UJA," he explained. "And they were very hopeful that there would be a raise for the judges, justices, etc."

Canterbury testified for the full fifth day of hearings on possible impeachment of the state Supreme Court justices.

The court sets its own budget, and those of all state courts. Many state legislators dislike that, saying it allows for mismanagement and extravagant spending.

Four years later, he said, the court had spent all but about $300,000 of those carryover funds, although it has built up another surplus since. Canterbury also told the committee the court started spending the money after two ranking Democratic senators had sharply criticized it during a Finance Committee hearing.

"Senators [Roman] Prezeioso and [John] Unger were just livid about the huge amount of carryover money, that there was this excess of funds that were in the court," Canterbury said. "The general thought was that we should bring down this carryover amount. And we did."

Lawmakers look likely to impeach Justice Allen Loughry, who also faces 23 counts in a separate, federal criminal case.

The House committee also heard evidence about the $3.7 million renovation of the court offices in the State Capitol. Canterbury said in some cases, they had to replace the original, paper-covered wiring. He said one office was picked to go first because, as he put it, "You could smell the wires burning in the walls."




get more stories like this via email

House lawmakers have passed a bill advocates said will be harmful to nonprofits in New York and nationwide.

House Resolution 9495 passed with a 219-184 vote after failing to get a two-thirds majority in the chamber last week. The bill gives the Treasury Secretary power to rescind tax-exempt status for nonprofits considered "terrorist supporting organizations." On its first vote, it had strong bipartisan support.

Jeff Ordower, U.S. Lead for the group 350 Action, said President-elect Donald Trump's rhetoric about "the enemy within" makes this bill's return troubling.

"They are trying to consolidate the number of tools in their toolbox," Ordower contended. "So they can move quickly to call some people the enemy within and shut down organizations that are supporting causes that are unpopular, supporting causes that are fighting corporate power, fighting structural racism."

Voting in favor of the bill were 15 Democrats, including Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y. It could be due to its other provision giving tax breaks to Americans wrongfully imprisoned abroad or held hostage by terror groups. Ordower noted it is the result of a push by groups who want Israel and Gaza's status quo before Oct. 7 restored, which aid organizations could jeopardize.

Beyond public concern, some experts feel the bill's primary goal is helping President-elect Trump consolidate power within the Executive Branch. Ordower pointed out it is one of the many battles with the second Trump Administration about what defines a healthy and sustainable democracy.

"What we need in order to really have a good fight that defends civil society, that leads us towards and continues some of the ways that are flourishing democracy is to have lots and lots of groups that are able to push their agendas, and not just groups with particular ideologies or point of views doing that," Ordower stressed.

Ordower is surprised by lawmaker's persistence to pass this bill given wars occurring across the world, as well as ongoing economic, climate and immigration issues at home. Some 150 groups including the ACLU signed a letter to House lawmakers urging them to oppose the measure.

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce outlined six key priorities for lawmakers ahead of the legislative session in January.

Rather than releasing detailed policy positions, the Chamber emphasized broad focus areas, including workforce, education, economic growth, infrastructure, quality of place and community health.

Phil GiaQuinta, D-Fort Wayne, House Minority Leader, responded to the Chamber's priorities, highlighting the need to address child care as a factor in economic development.

"We talk about economic development with things that impact economic development here in the state. Child care is really one of those," GiaQuinta contended.

The organization stressed the critical role of affordable child care in workforce development, citing a report estimating Indiana loses $4.2 billion annually, including $1.7 billion in tax revenue due to child care challenges. High costs force some parents out of the workforce, straining the state's economy.

Statehouse leaders acknowledged the issue but differ on solutions. Democrats argued child care deserves more state investment, while Republican leaders believe the private sector should play a larger role.

Todd Huston, R-Fishers, Speaker of the House, said businesses should not expect the state to solve their child care problems entirely.

"They've done a lot of different things to try to support families and young families. We will continue to do that," Huston stated. "But I think we also have to set a level of expectations that we're not going to; the state's not going to be funding all universal pre-K."

The Chamber plans to release detailed policy proposals in January, aiming to guide lawmakers toward strategies to strengthen Indiana's economy and workforce.


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota is no stranger to public pension debates. States face pressure to keep retirement systems well-funded and new data show most Americans place great value on such benefits for both government and private-sector workers.

According to the National Institute on Retirement Security, 86% of Americans believe all workers, not just those employed by state and local governments, should have a pension. There are similar approval levels when asked how important public pensions are in recruiting teachers and public safety workers.

Dan Doonan, executive director of the institute, suggested it is not too surprising to see the results.

"Pensions, along with other benefits, are part of creating that culture of careers and not jobs," Doonan explained.

Starting in January, North Dakota will close its main public pension plan for new hires, who will instead be offered a 401(k)-style benefit. The move followed debate over whether it was the right way to address a $1.9 billion unfunded liability. Backers argued it protects benefits for existing workers and taxpayers but skeptics contended it makes it harder to attract workers to the public sector.

Doonan noted the survey results overlap with the idea maintaining an experienced public-sector workforce is a good thing for community members and not just the employee and employer.

"In general, when public services are done well, they're often invisible, right?" Doonan emphasized. "We want good roads, we want safe communities, and I think Americans understand the role of having career public servants in terms of delivering those outcomes."

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said state and local governments employ about 20 million workers, which represents about 13% of the U.S. workforce.