Answers, Accountability
— McGraw Must Explain Settlement Process
Bluefield Daily Telegraph,
March 22, 2006
His unwillingness to discuss this issue has prompted legislators from both
parties to call for legislation that would provide greater legislative oversight
of and limit the discretionary powers of the West Virginia Attorney General’s
Office. Several lawmakers have stated that the Attorney General is exceeding his
constitutional authority.
The outcry centers on a $10 million settlement of a lawsuit filed in 2001 on
behalf the West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, the Public
Employees Insurance Agency and the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation
Commission (now BrickStreet). Lawmakers argue that disbursement of the OxyContin
settlement dollars should not be subject to the sole discretion of the Attorney
General.
Recently, Attorney General McGraw decided to provide selective grants from these
settlement dollars to various entities, including $500,000 to the
McGraw’s failure not to structure these settlement dollars to go to these
state agencies is unfathomable. Although the lawsuit was filed on behalf of
these agencies, it appears that none of the settlement dollars is going back to
them. Since they were the clients, how come they are not having a say in how
these settlement funds are used?
Two other key issues are at the heart of this battle – whether or not the
Attorney General should follow state bidding procedures for outside attorneys
and whether the Legislature has the constitutional authority to direct the use
of settlement dollars from consumer protection actions.
The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce believes Attorney General Darrell McGraw
should be forthcoming with legislators, the media and the general public on this
issue. McGraw needs to answer the following questions:
1) Why was the Oxycontin settlement agreement structured so that none of the
settlement dollars is going back to the three state agencies who were parties to
the lawsuit? How much restitution was sought on behalf of these clients?
2) What is the Attorney General’s process and practice for engaging outside
counsel for consumer affairs actions? Why are these services procured without
going through any formal notification, request for proposal or bidding
procedure, as required of all other state agencies?
3) Why are settlement agreements structured, particularly in the case of the
Oxycontin agreement, so that these dollars do not go into the state’s General
Revenue Fund for appropriation by the Legislature?
4) How does the Attorney General respond to 2002 report of the West Virginia
Legislature’s legislative auditor’s office that calls into question the
compensation being paid to outside counsel hired on a contingency fee basis?
5) Why has the Attorney General not changed his practice even after a Kanawha
County Circuit Court Judge’s ruled against his office’s practice of hiring
lawyers on a contingency fee basis?
The people of
— Steve Roberts, President
West Virginia
Chamber of Commerce
Charleston
,