Appeals Court Sides with TV Station in Release of Former Foster Care Official's Termination Letter

A West Virginia appeals court has ruled that the public interest outweighs privacy concerns in the release of a termination letter involving a former top official at the defunct Department of Health and Human Resources, which ran the state's foster care and substance use support services.

In a significant ruling, the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court decision and ordered the release of a termination letter involving a former top official at the now-defunct Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR). The appeals court held that the public interest in the firing of Jeremiah Samples, the former Deputy Secretary of DHHR, outweighs concerns about privacy violations.

The case stemmed from a public records request submitted by Huntington-based television station WSAZ, which sought information regarding Samples' resignation or termination and email correspondence between Samples and former DHHR Secretary Bill Crouch. The request was initially denied, prompting WSAZ to take the state to court.

The Kanawha County Circuit Court ruled that the privacy exemption to the state's open records law protected the termination letter from public disclosure. However, the circuit court did order the department to provide WSAZ with other requested emails and records.

In a twist of events, the department inadvertently included an unredacted copy of an unsigned draft of the termination letter in the records provided to WSAZ. The draft letter contained harsh criticism of Samples' performance and accusations of misconduct and insubordination.

WSAZ published the draft letter, leading the agency to argue that it constituted an invasion of privacy and that it was protected from public disclosure under the open records law exemption. The court, however, ruled that it was WSAZ's First Amendment right to publish the draft letter.

The appeals court judges agreed with WSAZ's argument that the release of the draft letter heightened the need for the release of the final letter. They emphasized that the purpose of the privacy exemption is to protect individuals from unnecessary disclosure of personal information, not information related to job function.

In their decision, the appeals court judges wrote: "Public employees have reduced privacy interests in records relating to their performance—especially when the records relate to the conduct of high-ranking officials."

The ruling is a significant victory for transparency and accountability in government. It affirms the right of the public to access information about the conduct of high-ranking public officials in matters related to their job function.

The DHHR has been under intense scrutiny in recent years for concerns about a lack of transparency involving abuse and neglect cases. The agency has since been disassembled and split into three separate agencies.

The case highlights the importance of transparency in government and the public's right to know how their tax dollars are being spent and how public officials are performing their duties.