Now that the first legislative session under the new locked-down Capitol security is over, it's time to see what we got for our $350,000 or so of taxpayer expense.
Some Capitol security statistics, courtesy of Lawrence Messina of Military Affairs and Public Safety:
n About 109,000 people passed through the two security entrances during the legislative session, "more than half, but less than two-thirds" through the West Wing entrance.
n As for numbers of individuals denied entrance because of possession of deadly weapons, hazardous materials or contraband, Messina said that "for security reasons," Capitol Police do not release specific details, but said there were "infrequent instances" involving such items.
"By far, the most common item in this category was pepper spray," Messina said.
n There were no arrests or citations of anyone caught possessing deadly weapons or contraband during the security screenings.
n There were some glitches, including a breakdown of the East Wing X-ray machine that required bags to be hand-searched for a time. Capitol Police obtained a new X-ray machine for the West Wing, and have one on order for the East Wing, he said.
Messina said there were two days when lines at the screening entrances backed up for 15 to 20 minutes: prior to the State of the State address (when hundreds of union members showed up to extend their felicitations to Senate President Bill Cole); and Child Advocacy Center Day on Feb. 3, when the various centers each brought large groups of children to the Capitol.
Bottom line: It seems for all the expense and hassle, the Capitol was turned into the state's largest, most secure gun-free zone, protected from threats to safety and security that apparently did not exist.
nnn
One need not point out the irony of having a Supreme Court candidate running on a platform opposing frivolous and abusive lawsuits who filed frivolous and abusive lawsuits intended to knock two of her competitors out of the race.
As Justice Brent Benjamin put it, "This politically motivated frivolous lawsuit was a sad waste of taxpayer money."
Obviously, had Benjamin and Beckley lawyer and former longtime legislator Bill Wooton been denied Supreme Court public campaign financing for technicalities raised in Beth Walker's lawsuits, it would have had a chilling effect on the young program.
What candidate in his or her right mind would gamble on public financing knowing that any small misstep would result in forfeiting the campaign funding - and any chance of running a competitive campaign. (Of course, that may be exactly what Walker's backers hoped would happen.)
While Walker wanted to deny Benjamin and Wooton nearly $500,000 each in campaign financing for missing some dubious deadlines for filing paperwork - acting Chief Justice Thomas Keadle likened it to putting someone in the penitentiary for petit larceny - it was noted that Walker herself missed the deadline for filing the challenges with the State Election Commission.
(Her Pittsburgh lawyer said the rules as drafted were just impossible to follow to the T.)
Turns out, that's not the only deadline Walker has missed.
Under the state Ethics Act, candidates for state and county offices must file financial disclosures with the Ethics Commission within 10 days of filing for public office.
Walker filed her candidacy papers on Jan. 11, but did not file her Ethics disclosure until Jan. 25 - four days late.
Under the law, candidates who fail to file financial disclosures may be removed from the ballot, but neither Benjamin nor Wooton were petty enough to file a complaint with the Ethics Commission.
nnn
Meanwhile, when the Legislature passed the law creating nonpartisan judicial elections, with a single election during the May primary and no run-off elections, I recall lawyer/lobbyist George Carenbauer noting that it could lead to a fringe candidate winning a multi-candidate race with a comparatively small percentage of the vote.
I have a hunch that this year, that candidate could be Darrell McGraw, who has high name recognition, high popularity among labor, and could benefit from West Virginians who have voter's remorse about voting McGraw out as attorney general in 2012.
nnn
Finally, candidates for major offices put out campaign prospectuses (prospecti?) that they send to major donors and Political Action Committees to seek funding.
To that end, Mark Hunt's congressional prospectus is no surprise, but this entry is: "As a candidate for the West Virginia House of Delegates in 2014, Mr. Hunt received more votes than the opposition. However, he was not able to obtain the seat to which he was elected due to residency requirements at that time, and changes made by the Legislature regarding districts."
Which is odd, since Hunt actually finished last among four candidates in the 2014 Democratic primary in the three-member 36th Delegate District.
Redistricting, which broke up the seven-member 30th Delegate District into the four-member 35th and the 36th, had been in effect for the 2012 elections.
Contacted about the entry, Hunt said, "That's an absolute, positive mistake," saying the statement actually refers to his campaign for the state Democratic Executive Committee, not the House.
Glad we cleared that up ...hold it, what?
Reach Phil Kabler at philk@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-1220, or follow @PhilKabler on Twitter.