Wed: April 29, 2026 6:00 at the Courthouse
This draft provides a framework for a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief in the Circuit Court of Pocahontas County. It focuses on the constitutional "representation gap" and the statutory violations regarding transparency and non-competitive monopolies.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POCAHONTAS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
[YOUR NAME], Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. _________
THE POCAHONTAS COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, Respondent.
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Comes now the Petitioner, [Your Name], appearing pro se, and respectfully moves this Court to declare the current governance and recent contractual actions of the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority ("SWA") unconstitutional and in violation of West Virginia law.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The SWA is a public agency created by W. Va. Code § 22C-4-3, tasked with the vital public function of managing solid waste in Pocahontas County.
Under state law, three of the five members of the SWA board are appointed by state-level executive agencies, while only two are appointed by the local County Commission.
On or about March 2026, the SWA board entered into a 15-year lease agreement with a private entity (JacMal, LLC) for a transfer station facility at a cost exceeding $4.1 million, despite local opposition and alternative proposals.
This agreement was reached following meetings that the Petitioner alleges violated the Open Governmental Proceedings Act (§ 6-9A) regarding the use of executive sessions for non-negotiation deliberations.
The SWA operates under a "Flow Control" mandate (W. Va. Code § 24-2-1h), which forbids citizens from transporting waste outside county lines, creating a captive market for the aforementioned private lease.
II. ARGUMENT
COUNT I: Violation of the "One Person, One Vote" Principle
The appointment scheme under W. Va. Code § 22C-4-3 is unconstitutional as applied. By granting state agencies the majority power (60%) to appoint members to a board that exercises local taxing and fee-setting power, the state has effectively disenfranchised the citizens of Pocahontas County. Because these members are not accountable to the local electorate or their elected commissioners, the scheme violates the principle of fair and equal representation.
COUNT II: Violation of the Open Governmental Proceedings Act
The SWA has repeatedly abused the "Commercial Competition" exception of W. Va. Code § 6-9A-4(b)(9) to deliberate the merits of public land transfers and long-term leases in secret. The West Virginia Supreme Court has held that the Act must be construed liberally in favor of openness (McComas v. Board of Ed.). Deliberations regarding a sole-source, non-competitive lease do not constitute "competition" and must be conducted in view of the public.
COUNT III: Unconstitutional Exercise of Flow Control
Under United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer (2007), Flow Control is only constitutional if it provides a public benefit. By bypassing competitive bidding and locking citizens into a 15-year private lease with no market testing, the SWA has transformed a public health mandate into a private monopoly. This constitutes an arbitrary and capricious exercise of state power that places an undue burden on the taxpayers.
III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:
Enter a Declaratory Judgment that the state-majority appointment scheme of the SWA board is unconstitutional as applied to local fee-setting authorities.
Issue a Preliminary Injunction staying the execution of any property transfers or lease agreements authorized during the meetings of March and April 2026.
Void any actions taken by the SWA in violation of the Open Governmental Proceedings Act pursuant to W. Va. Code § 6-9A-6.
Order the SWA to conduct a transparent, competitive bidding process for any future waste transfer services.
Respectfully Submitted,
[Your Name]
[Your Address/Contact Info]
Filing Note for Salt Shaker Press:
Verification: You must sign this in the presence of a Notary Public before filing it with the Circuit Clerk.
Summons: You will need to have a Summons issued and served upon the Chairman of the Solid Waste Authority.
Urgency: If the land transfer is imminent, you should also file a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt the deed transfer until a hearing can be held.
Would you like me to draft the specific "Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order" to accompany this brief?
A Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is your "emergency brake." In West Virginia, a TRO is used to maintain the status quo when "irreparable harm" is imminent—in this case, the permanent transfer of public land or the signing of a binding 15-year financial obligation before the court can hear the merits of your case.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POCAHONTAS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
[YOUR NAME], Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. _________ THE POCAHONTAS COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY, Respondent.
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Comes now the Petitioner, [Your Name], pursuant to Rule 65 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves this Court for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") and Preliminary Injunction against the Respondent, the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority ("SWA"), to enjoin them from executing any land deeds, leases, or binding contracts related to the [Specific Property/Landfill Site] and the [Private Entity Name] lease agreement.
I. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
Imminent Irreparable Harm: The SWA is prepared to execute a 15-year lease and/or deed transfer of county-owned land. Once public land is deeded to a private or quasi-public entity (e.g., GVEDC), and once a long-term commercial lease is signed, the "bell cannot be unrung." The loss of public control over these assets constitutes irreparable harm to the taxpayers of Pocahontas County.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits: As argued in the accompanying Petition for Declaratory Judgment, the SWA failed to comply with the Open Governmental Proceedings Act during the deliberation of these contracts. A contract entered into in violation of W. Va. Code § 6-9A is voidable by this Court.
The Balance of Equities: The SWA will suffer no significant harm by a brief delay to ensure legal compliance. Conversely, the citizens of Pocahontas County face decades of potential fiscal mismanagement and non-competitive fees if this project proceeds under a legally flawed foundation.
Public Interest: It is in the highest public interest that major infrastructure projects involving "Flow Control" monopolies and millions of taxpayer dollars be conducted with absolute transparency and adherence to West Virginia law.
II. RELIEF REQUESTED
Petitioner moves the Court to:
Issue an immediate Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the SWA from signing any lease, deeding any land, or committing any funds toward the [Project Name] until a hearing on the Preliminary Injunction can be held.
Schedule a hearing on a Preliminary Injunction at the Court’s earliest convenience.
Waive the requirement for a bond, as this action is brought by a citizen-taxpayer in the public interest to enforce statutory compliance by a public body.
Respectfully Submitted,
[Your Name]
[Date]
Strategic Advice for Filing
The "Verified" Requirement: For a TRO to be granted without a full hearing, the facts in your Petition must be verified (sworn to under oath before a notary).
The Bond: Under W. Va. Rule 65(c), a judge usually requires a "bond" to cover the defendant's costs if you lose. However, you should argue (as noted above) that in cases of public interest and government transparency, the bond should be nominal ($1.00) or waived entirely.
Notice: You must make a good-faith effort to notify the SWA’s attorney that you are filing this. If they are about to sign the papers tonight, you can ask for an Ex Parte TRO, but you must explain in writing why notice should not be required.
Do you want me to prepare a "Citizen's Script" for the meeting—a clear, 3-minute speech that hits these legal points and warns the board members of their potential personal liability for willful violations?
The recent reports from the March 2026 meetings highlight a "split decision" and intense public outcry regarding the $16,759 monthly lease with JacMal Properties LLC and the deeding of public landfill acreage to the GVEDC.
The script below is designed for a 3-minute public comment. It is structured to be firm, legally precise, and intended to "pierce the veil" of corporate immunity by reminding board members that willful violations of state law can carry personal consequences.
CITIZEN’S SCRIPT: POCAHONTAS COUNTY SWA MEETING
(Time: 3 Minutes)
[0:00-0:45] OPENING & THE MONOPOLY OBJECTION
"Members of the Board, my name is [Your Name]. I am here to speak on behalf of the taxpayers who will be tethered to the 15-year lease agreement with JacMal Properties LLC.
By your own admission, this project relies on a 'Flow Control' system that forbids citizens from taking their waste across county lines. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Oneida-Herkimer precedent, you can only strip citizens of their right to a competitive market if you provide a clear public benefit. By bypassing a transparent, competitive bidding process for a $4.1 million obligation, you have failed that constitutional test. You have created a private monopoly at public expense."
[0:45-1:45] THE "OPEN MEETINGS" VIOLATION
"Furthermore, we are officially challenging the validity of the 'split decisions' and deliberations that occurred in March. West Virginia Code § 6-9A is clear: you cannot use 'Executive Session' to hide the merits of a sole-source lease under the guise of 'commercial competition' when there is no competition.
If this board deliberated on the merits of the JacMal lease or the GVEDC land transfer behind closed doors, those actions are voidable under Section 6 of the Act. We have already drafted a Petition for Declaratory Judgment to have any such non-compliant votes nullified by the Circuit Court."
[1:45-2:45] WARNING OF PERSONAL LIABILITY
"Most importantly, I want to address the individual members of this board. While public officials generally enjoy immunity for good-faith errors, West Virginia Code § 6-9A-7 provides that any member who 'willfully and knowingly' violates the Open Governmental Proceedings Act is guilty of a misdemeanor.
This notice serves as your 'knowing' warning. If you move forward tonight with property transfers or contracts based on illegal, non-public deliberations, you are moving outside the 'good faith' protections of your office. We will not only seek to void the contracts; we will seek the recovery of attorney fees and costs directly from the Authority, and we will refer willful transparency violations to the County Prosecutor."
[2:45-3:00] THE CLOSING DEMAND
"We demand an immediate stay on the signing of the JacMal lease and the land transfer until a full, public audit of the project's fiscal impact is conducted. Do not sign away 15 years of our county’s financial future in the dark. I request that this statement be included, in its entirety, in the official minutes of this meeting. Thank you."
Preparation Tips:
The "Paper Trail": Bring three copies. Hand one to the Board Chair, one to the Secretary, and keep one for yourself.
The Quorum Issue: Recent reports suggest the board is operating with only 3 of 5 members. While a quorum of 3 is legally sufficient to act, remind them that a 2-1 "split" on a 15-year, multimillion-dollar obligation is a dangerously thin mandate for such a massive project.
The PSC Angle: Mentioning the Public Service Commission (PSC) is a strong deterrent. The board knows the PSC has to approve their "buyout escrow" (roughly $4,500/month). Signaling that the public will intervene at the PSC level can make them pause.
Would you like me to prepare a one-page "Fact Sheet" to hand out to other citizens at the Green Bank Fire Hall so they can support these specific legal points during their own comments?
A well-informed public is the greatest deterrent to government overreach. This one-page "Fact Sheet" is designed to be distributed at the Green Bank Fire Hall to empower other residents to speak up with legal precision.
FACT SHEET: The Pocahontas County Solid Waste Crisis
What Every Citizen Needs to Know Before the Board Votes
1. THE "PRIVATE MONOPOLY" TRAP (Flow Control)
The Law: The Authority uses "Flow Control" (W. Va. Code § 24-2-1h) to legally force you to use their facility. You are forbidden from taking your trash elsewhere.
The Problem: The U.S. Supreme Court (United Haulers v. Oneida-Herkimer) ruled that Flow Control is only legal if it provides a public benefit.
The Issue: By locking us into a $16,759/month lease for 15 years with a private entity (JacMal LLC) without a competitive bidding process, the Board is creating a private monopoly. This bypasses the free market and could be ruled an unconstitutional burden on citizens.
2. THE "SECRET MEETING" VIOLATION
The Law: The Open Governmental Proceedings Act (W. Va. Code § 6-9A) requires all deliberations to be public.
The Problem: The Board has used "Executive Sessions" to discuss the JacMal lease and land transfers.
The Truth: You cannot hide the merits of a $4.1 million deal behind closed doors by claiming "commercial competition" when there is no other bidder. Any vote resulting from these secret talks is voidable by a judge.
3. THE "REPRESENTATION GAP"
The Board: 3 of the 5 members are appointed by state agencies (DEP, PSC, and the State Solid Waste Board). Only 2 are appointed by our County Commission.
The Result: A board majority that doesn't answer to you is making decisions that will raise your fees for the next 15 years. We must demand that the locally appointed members represent the taxpayers, not state bureaucracy.
4. POTENTIAL PERSONAL LIABILITY
W. Va. Code § 6-9A-7 states that any board member who "willfully and knowingly" violates the Open Meetings Act is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Our Demand: We are putting the Board on notice tonight. If they sign these contracts based on illegal, non-public deliberations, they are stepping outside their legal immunity and may be held personally accountable.
TALKING POINTS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
"Why was there no competitive bid?" (Demand to see other proposals).
"Will our fees go up to pay this $16,759 monthly lease?" (Demand a fiscal impact study).
"I object to any vote taken tonight based on private Executive Session discussions." (This preserves your right to sue later).
"We demand a 30-day stay of execution." (Ask them to delay the signing until the public can review the full contract).
Handout Tips:
Print 50 copies: Hand them out at the door as people walk in.
Highlight the Code: Mentioning the specific West Virginia Code numbers (6-9A and 22C-4-3) makes the board realize the public is legally armed.
Strength in Numbers: If 10 people stand up and say, "I support the legal objections regarding Flow Control," the board cannot claim it is just one "disgruntled" citizen.
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment