- Delegate Mike Folk stands up for 2nd Amendment Rights in West Virginia
- Marshall Has 21 Named to All-Conference and All-Freshman Teams
- Human Relations Commission Amendment Deletes “Handicap” Substitutes “Disabled”
- Comprehensive Plan, Skatepark Approved by Huntington Council
- Contaminated Debris of Huntington Pilot Plant Transported by Truck in 1979
- Prepared Remarks of Richard Cordray of CFPB on CareCredit Enforcement Action
- IMAGES: Huntington High School Honored by Council, Mayor Despite Loss
- WSJ Wasteland Series Continues in Pennsylvania where Uranium Processing Site had "Birdcages"
- Toxic TCE Released to Huntington's Air Sept. 11-15, 2008, per EPA Settlement; Authorities not Immediately Notified of Release
- Richard Cordray, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Discusses Mortgage Rules at Consumer Federation of America Meeting
EDITORIAL: West Virginia Radio is Right--Let the Trial Proceed
WVRC is correct on this, since summary judgment requires a judge to believe that no material facts are in question. Moreover, in the past, the West Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that the party opposing summary judgment must be given the most favorable inferences. Otherwise, how many such parties would be denied their day in court to present their case?
Some of the most important material facts that need to be decided by a full trial process revolve around the charge that WVU acted fraudulently in their bidding process for these radio broadcast rights.
For example, WVRC maintains that the second bidding process, which was supposed to be used to clear up the acknowledged problems of the first bidding process, was a "pre-determined sham." WVRC claims they can prove that the second bidding process--which was also won by their rival, IMG--was tailored to favor a specific bidder.
Is this true? The only way to find out is if the judge in this case lets the wheels of justice to continue their slow turning. Let both parties bring their best cases forward in the transparency of an open courtroom.
Too much of the time in West Virginia, the public is denied a chance to hear the full truth. Companies, corporations, and even universities have become quite practiced at the art of quiet legal agreements to avoid public viewing of their internal problems.
We don't know yet if WVU has a serious internal problem here. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But this case has already caused enough of a stir that the only way for WVU to brush aside the appearance of impropriety is to show the public that they have nothing to hide. After all, WVU is a state-supported entity, accountable to the taxpayers.
Let the trial proceed.