It Happened in Pocahontas County and Affected Children

 

 

Research into historical and public records indicates that instances of "bid rigging" in Pocahontas County are not a frequent or systemic occurrence in the public record, with one notable historical exception from the 1980s.

Below is a summary of the documented historical case and the context regarding current community concerns.

1. Historical Case: The Milk Contract Antitrust Litigation (1980s)

The most prominent documented case of bid rigging involving Pocahontas County occurred in the mid-1980s regarding school milk contracts.

• The Incident: Between 1984 and 1987, Valley Rich Dairy and Meadow Gold Dairies were accused of engaging in a conspiracy to rig bids for milk contracts with several West Virginia county school systems, including Pocahontas, Greenbrier, and Monroe counties.

• The Scheme: The companies were accused of deciding in advance which dairy would win a specific contract, with the other company either agreeing not to bid or intentionally bidding at a higher price to ensure their competitor won.

• Legal Outcome:

  • In 1992, both companies pleaded guilty to federal antitrust violations (Sherman Act) and paid significant fines ($1 million for Meadow Gold; $500,000 for Valley Rich).

  • Subsequent civil litigation, including Supermarket of Marlinton v. Meadow Gold Dairies and West Virginia ex. rel McGraw v. Meadow Gold Dairies, sought further damages. However, these cases faced procedural hurdles, such as the dismissal of evidence categorized as "inadmissible hearsay" or issues regarding the statute of limitations, and did not result in a long-standing pattern of publicized local prosecutions for similar activities.

2. Contemporary Context: Solid Waste Authority (SWA) Concerns

It is important to distinguish the historical legal cases from current community concerns. You are currently monitoring the Pocahontas County Solid Waste Authority’s (SWA) decision-making regarding the transition of the county landfill and the proposed transfer station.

• Lack of Competitive Bidding: Residents have recently voiced opposition to the SWA’s engagement with a private entity to build a transfer station, specifically citing the absence of a public bidding process for the project or the hauling contract.

• The Distinction: While residents and community members have expressed concern that the lack of an open bid process could lead to unfair practices or higher costs (e.g., "green box" fees), this is distinct from a criminal conviction of "bid rigging." In public administration, the debate often centers on whether the governing body followed proper procurement statutes—or whether those statutes were flexible enough to allow for the observed behavior—rather than an established criminal conspiracy.

Investigative Resources for Your Research

If you are continuing to investigate the SWA’s procurement processes, you may find these resources useful for verifying if current actions align with state mandates:

• West Virginia Commission on Special Investigations (CSI): The CSI is tasked with investigating public corruption, including purchasing irregularities and conflicts of interest. They accept information from concerned citizens and can be a point of contact if you believe procurement laws are being violated.

  • Contact: (304) 347-4120 or email CSI@wvcsi.gov.

• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests: As you have already done, continuing to request records of interactions, contracts, and meeting minutes is the standard mechanism to uncover whether a process was truly "bid-free" or if it fell under an exception (such as sole-source procurement or an emergency declaration).