repubgazette3-8-07charnockommissiongreenfaith

Press releases are the media lifeline of politicians and businesses, and the bane of reporters. News media outlets are constantly bombarded with press releases making major announcements, minor announcements, pronouncements meant to put a favorable spin on a bad story, groundbreakings, ribbon cuttings, promotions, purchases, you name it, there's a press release for it.

But what all press releases have in common is that they are meant to be distributed and read by the media. No one ever does a press release with the hopes it will not be seen. The closest thing I ever saw to such a phenomenon was a press release issued by former GOP Senate candidate Hiram Lewis announcing he would not be available for comment.

That's why it is particularly strange that it took a full five days after the forced resignation of Kanawha County Prosecutor Bill Charnock for a media outlet -- the Charleston Daily Mail -- to report that a press release issued by special prosecutor Dwane Tinsley contained a key admission -- Tinsley did not believe he could convict Charnock of a crime.

Despite the fact the press release was apparently issued on Friday, no media outlets reported this important detail until reporter Brad McElhinny did so in Wednesday's Daily Mail, when he first became aware of it.

Just how and why TV, radio and newspapers failed to report this finding remains a mystery. Some original media reports appear to closely follow the wording of other parts of the press release. But Tinsley's key conclusion that there was "insufficient direct evidence to convict Mr. Charnock of violations of the criminal statutes" -- a finding that cries out for headline treatment -- somehow slipped through the cracks.

It is unknown how widely the press release was initially distributed. The Daily Mail apparently became aware of its existence only in the course of doing follow up stories.

It is also unclear who was in charge of distributing the press release. Commissioner Kent Carper made it clear several times over the past five days that Tinsley was essentially working for the commission, given that Carper had to sign a $35,000 check to cover the cost of the investigation.

Carper became an outspoken advocate for openness, insisting the results of Tinsley's investigation be made public, that the people had a right to know, that constituents would be ill-served by not being made fully aware of everything Tinsley had discovered. Therefore, it is impossible that Carper himself would have withheld such important information as the fact that what Tinsley ultimately found was nothing that would result in a guilty verdict.

In fact, McElhinny's story on Wednesday was the best piecing together yet of the puzzle that is the entire Charnock witchhunt. The story almost shouts out from between the lines that the legislative auditor who was ordered to go after Charnock so badly botched the evidence that it was practically inadmissable by the time it got into Tinsley's hands.

As McElhinny reported:

Tinsley said some of the evidence that originally came to light as part of a legislative auditor's report might not be admissible in court.

He wrote that, "There were several procedural and evidentiary issues that occurred prior to the beginning of this investigation that may have prevented some evidence from being admissible at trial."

Charnock haters will respond by saying, "If the prosecutor did not think he could convict Charnock, then why did Charnock resign?"

Because for some strange reason, Tinsley insisted on presenting his findings to a grand jury, even though he did not believe he could get a conviction.

It has been widely known that Charnock was not planning to seek reelection in 2008. Why subject himself to more neverending news stories and an unnecessary trial when he could simply resign and move to be with his wife and child, as he planned to do eventually anyway?

The Charnock case has been the most pure example of selective political prosecution you will ever encounter. The political abuse of the office of the legislative auditor and the judicial system to oust Bill Charnock is alarming, even by the standards of West Virginia Democrats. The Democrats were upset when Charnock was elected prosecutor, and from Day One made it their mission to be rid of him.

They achieved their objective, once again at the cost of the integrity of all involved.

At the cost of a relatively meager $400,000, the investment of the gambling industry in the last election pays off today when the State Legislature passes the table games bill.

To be exact, Associated Press writer Lawrence Messina reports today that gambling interests spent $393,000 in support of candidates in the 2006 election -- a bargain compared to the millions they stand to reap if voters in four counties okay ballot measures.

And this was priceless: The Beckley Register-Herald reported Wednesday that Sen. Mike Green, D-Raleigh, "agonized over the issue the past two weeks as the steam began to rise on the long-dormant issue, and admittedly was torn between the tenets of democracy and the pulls of his faith." Eventually, "democracy" won out over faith for Green, who said he apologized to his pastor for his pro-gambling vote.

Green, of course, received more gambling campaign money than anyone last year.

In July of 2002 Morgantown voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal pushed by, among others, Delegate Barbara Fleischauer that would have forced collective bargaining and binding arbitration down the throat of the City of Morgantown. The people spoke, and the measure was defeated

by a margin of over 2 to 1. But apparently the voice of the people isn't enough for Ms. Fleischauer.

Now, she has signed on as co-sponsor to a bill which would throw out the people's decision in Morgantown and impose collective bargaining and binding arbitration upon all municipal governments when it comes to setting salaries for police and firefighters. This bill is being roundly criticised--and rightly so. It would bankrupt cities and counties across the state, as it has already ruined the city of Huntington.

But one has to wonder: why is Delegate Fleischauer going over Morgantown voters' heads?

We don't have to wonder for long, because in a recent interview with WAJR-AM she gives us her answer. She claims that the people of Morgantown were just misinformed when they voted 2-1 against this idea. So, let's leave it to her and her liberal buddies to "educate" us on the matter.

It's a slap in the face to introduce this bill. And it speaks volumes about Ms. Fleischauer's political character that she's not introducing this bill in an election year. Let's hope that our collective memories don't fade so fast this time.

Tom O'Neill

Morgantown