Roberts calls ruling ‘major loss’ for newspaper
Rep. Larry Roberts (D-South Union) said a recent Supreme Court decision that the Herald-Standard was not constitutionally entitled to his phone bills was a “major loss” for the newspaper. In a two-page response faxed to the paper on Monday, Roberts said that, were it not for him showing his phone bills to other media outlets, “… there would not be an issue.”
Roberts’ response was to a Supreme Court decision that ruled the newspaper was not constitutionally permitted to see the taxpayer-subsidized long distance and cellular telephone bills that related to his legislative activities.
“While there are constitutional rights that allow them to publish some things about me and my activities, there are no constitutional requirements that I provide them with information,” said Roberts.
The 4-3 ruling, however, did acknowledge that since Roberts refused to show the bills to reporter Paul Sunyak, he may have taken retaliatory actions and violated the state’s equal protection clause.
The Supreme Court returned those issues to the Commonwealth Court, where the suit originated. Commonwealth Court is now charged with the task of determining if Roberts did take retaliatory action or violated the clause.
In 2000, the newspaper and Sunyak filed suit against Roberts to gain access to the bills after he reportedly showed them to other members of the media, but refused to release them to Sunyak. Roberts acknowledged he did offer the bills to others in his release, and said that, had he not done so, the Herald-Standard would not have a case.
“The decision is quite clear and unequivocal and while the newspaper may continue to pursue a minor issue, I think the court’s decision is a major loss to the newspaper,” wrote Roberts. “The Supreme Court ruled unambiguously that my phone bills are not public records and the newspaper does not have a legal right to see them.”
The legislator also said he was satisfied to see that the Supreme Court recognized that he did offer to show the records to the Herald-Standard. The newspaper has contended that Roberts did so conditionally, asking the paper to pardon him of wrongdoing and requesting that Sunyak not have access to them.
“Unfortunately, the editor of the newspaper would not agree to maintain the confidentiality of those I called and that is why we ended up in court,” Roberts alleged.
Former Herald-Standard Executive Editor Michael C. Ellis said he does not recall confidentiality of those people listed in the records being one of Roberts’ conditions. Even if it were, said Ellis, the newspaper would not have agreed to such a condition.
“We considered them to be public records and would not have agreed to confidentiality. What would have been the point of releasing them (if we agreed to that)?” said Ellis.