Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer

Public Comments

2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Michael Emrich on February 19, 2026 14:29
It is very much needed in our state.
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Kaitlyn Chapman on February 19, 2026 14:02
I strongly support this bill to assist my fellow West Virginians!
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Dr. Kate Waldeck on February 19, 2026 13:30
This bill is desperately needed. I strongly support it. We can expect more weather extremes and WVians will suffer without planning in advance.
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Darian Marcum on February 19, 2026 12:04
I strongly support this bill in WV. West Virginians deserve real support after disaster strikes. Please grant this supplementary appropriation and support disaster case management and the West Virginia Disaster Recovery Trust Fund.
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Allana Taylor on February 19, 2026 11:54
I strongly support this bill for West Virginia, we need disaster case managers.
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Dave Lumsden on February 19, 2026 10:26
Delegates, West Virginia Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (WV VOAD) strongly supports HB 5601. WV VOAD and its partners bear a substantial load in survivor disaster recovery.  But a major stumbling block in our work is the paucity of case managers--the folks who work with survivors to assess need and develop recovery plans, identify resources, negotiate sticking points, and generally guide families through the maze that is disaster recovery. The funding requested in the bill will make a decisive difference in our work and the lives of survivors.  Please consider passing this bill and working with your counterparts in the Senate to make case management a reality. Sincerely, David Lumsden Chairman, WV VOAD
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Glenn on February 19, 2026 09:56
I strongly support this in West Virginia
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Marcus on February 19, 2026 09:54
I strongly support in West Virginia
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Terah Poff on February 19, 2026 09:52
I strongly support this bill for West Virginia !
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Leigh Surface on February 19, 2026 09:52

I strongly support this bill for WV! We need help.

2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Bobby on February 19, 2026 09:51
I strongly support this bill for West Virginia
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Mandy Shurak on February 19, 2026 09:48
West Virginians need disaster release.
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Valerie Huth on February 19, 2026 09:40
I strongly support this bill for West Virginia 🙏
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Brooke Fogleman on February 19, 2026 09:39
I strongly support this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jenna Dent on February 19, 2026 09:37
I strongly support this bill for West Virginia.
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Kaitlyn Bailey on February 19, 2026 09:24
Hello, My name is Kaitlyn Bailey and I am a Mercer County, WV resident. I was a part of Hurricane Helene when it came through Mercer County. I had over 10 inches of water in my home, no electricity for three weeks, and multiple damages to my home. I had no idea where to begin to receive help for this disaster, or where I could even go to have someone help me. It was a devastating time where I felt there was no hope for my situation. Implementing Disaster Case Managers in West Virginia full-time would be so beneficial for the community and the people who live in West Virginia. It is important to allow these people to have resources that they can rely on and reach out to in the time of need. Most people do not know how to handle FEMA applications, let alone appeals, having disaster case managers in the state full-time would allow West Virginia to have people to support them and assist them. We lost so much during the floods and it was a true disservice to our community to not have people to assist them. I strongly support this bill for funding for Disaster Case Management! I am so hopeful to see this move foward!   Thank you, Kaitlyn Bailey
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Suzie DeCou on February 19, 2026 09:19
I currently work as a disaster case manager, assisting those impacted by Hurricane Helene.  The impacts of that event are still being felt over a year and a half later. WV residents who already had limited resources have had their homes, sometimes their only asset, destroyed. So many of these clients are living in homes or properties that have been in their families for generations, they don't want to leave. Most are not in a flood zone, but the area was so inundated with rain, that they had flooding destroy their foundations, cause land slides, and ruin their possessions. Without the support of the state and other agencies, these people would not be able to rebuild or repair their homes. So many people were already living in impoverished areas, now they are living with mold and homes with damaged electrical systems or no HVAC or furnaces. This funding helps to support those in need to get back to a safe, sanitary, and secure home. As a Huntington resident I have also seen first hand what it is to have your neighborhood destroyed by a heavy rain that caused a hundred year flood- the same hundred year flood that happened a year later. The damages aren't enough to qualify for FEMA assistance, but it doesn't mean an entire neighborhood wasn't uprooted. Hundreds of people had to fully relocate while their homes were renovated, again, not in a flood zone. After the initial event, the WV National Guard arrived, help pass out meals, the Red Cross provided cleaning supplies for residents - the support of the community was behind the neighborhood. What happens when they leave? People with kids and full time jobs were forced to pay for complete renovations on their own. Many people sold their homes at a loss. It's now going on 4 years since that event and there are still homes being worked on, you can still see the storage buildings in yards that are turned sideways, you can see the water lines on the fences. Disaster Case Management provides long term assistance, after the initial volunteers and attention goes away. With climate change our weather will only become more intense and these events more frequent. I strongly support this bill for funding for Disaster Case Management. 
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Lola Jones on February 19, 2026 06:24
I strongly support this Bill to fund disaster case management in WV.  There are many families still in need of help with housing repairs and other needs from the flooding and other disasters.  Funding for this bill will allow families to get the help they need!  Please pass this bill!  
2026 Regular Session HB5645 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Amy Jo Hutchison on February 18, 2026 22:49
This bill will cost so much more for our state as the responsibility from the feds to the state. Not to mention, our error rates will increase because this will be a logistical nightmare to implement, increasing costs to the state. This is just another copy and paste bill that perpetuates poverty and poverty bias. Poverty is created by bad policy,  not by God. 1 John 3:17 (NIV): "If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?".
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: John Hockaday on February 18, 2026 19:40
Im a licensed Outfitter in the State of West Virginia. Operating Bloodline Trackers and Chillbilly Outdoors, Both licensed and insured businesses within our beautiful state. My primary contribution has been to our hunting public, working as a professional wounded game recovery specialist. I've been successfully tracking game since its legalization. I strongly support handler dispatch. Ive personally been in several scenarios in which the safety of myself or my dog has been challenged by a wounded animal. I've also had physically  challenged clients whom, either by age or handicap, were unable to keep on the trail.  Those licensed hunters may not have the physical prowess necessary to recover an animal that's put distance between himself and the hunter or to follow myself, the tracker, into rough terain. I support this bill. Thank you.
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jared McKinney on February 18, 2026 19:01
I am in favor of this bill. Handler dispatch will make it safer for those of us tracking by eliminating the need for the hunter to carry a weapon. It is also the more humane for the animal by eliminating unnecessary suffering.
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: James Diff on February 18, 2026 18:44
I am in strong support of this bill. Implementing handler dispatch will significantly improve safety for those of us involved in tracking by eliminating the need to have a hunter follow directly behind us carrying a bow, crossbow, or firearm. Reducing that close-quarters dynamic lowers the risk of accidents and creates a more controlled environment in the field. In addition to improving safety, handler dispatch is also the more humane option for wildlife. It allows for a quicker, more efficient recovery and minimizes prolonged suffering. This approach supports both responsible hunting practices and the well-being of the animals we pursue. For these reasons, I respectfully urge support for this legislation.
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Evan Mason on February 18, 2026 18:42
I am in favor of the handler dispatch for the simple reason of safety for the tracker. Not having to be followed by the hunter with a rifle or a bow or crossbow, and I believe it’s a more humane option to put the animal down.
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: John Davis on February 18, 2026 18:37
I am in favor of this bill and believe handler dispatch will make it safer for those of us tracking by eliminating the need to have a hunter following us with a bow, crossbow, or firearm. It will eliminate a possible dangerous scenario for the tracker as well as the dog where a one of the listed items above could be inadvertently discharged at the incorrect time endangering the tracker as well as the dog.It is also the more humane thing to do for the wildlife as well.
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Stephanie Davis on February 18, 2026 18:34
I’m in favor of this bill! I believe handler dispatch is the safest option.
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Mike Ratcliffe on February 18, 2026 18:33
I’m in favor of this bill. This will keep an animal from suffering when a hunter cannot get to the wounded animal as quickly as the dog and handler, as they are usually in much better physical shape. Thanks you
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Josh Nowlin on February 18, 2026 18:33
I support this bill and believe that the changes listed for handler dispatching are very necessary for the preservation of our state’s natural resources
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Devin Brown on February 18, 2026 18:32
I am in favor of this bill and believe handler dispatch will make it safer for those of us tracking by eliminating the need to have a hunter follow us with a bow crossbow or firearm. It is also the more humane thing to do for the wildlife as well.
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Shon Butler on February 18, 2026 18:32
This bill is needed. Tracking is very very dangerous. The licensed tracker needs to have the discretion to dispatch with a pistol for safety. Mortally injured whitetail bucks and bears can kill you or your dog quickly. While self defense is understood, this is a gray area and people have been warned or ticketed for dispatching a deer with a sidearm, including myself. Also the hunter should not be armed. This creates a safety issue when a hunter is carrying a loaded crossbow or gun behind you, then gets flustered and tries to shoot through the tracking team to dispatch.
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jeremy Zickefoose on February 18, 2026 18:29
I am for this bill. Handler dispatch is good thing.
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Ty George on February 18, 2026 18:28
I am for this bill as a wounded game tracker. There has been several times that my dog or I have been put in situations where we have been in danger by a wounded animal that we were tracking and the hunter was not right with us to dispatch. I feel that this Bill should be passed for situations like those. Thank you
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Chase Starcher on February 18, 2026 18:27
I am for HB 5531
2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Andrew Darby on February 18, 2026 18:24

I am for Handler dispatch. This not only keeps everyone involved safer but it also ensures the animal a quicker resolution.

2026 Regular Session HB5531 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Stacy Stout on February 18, 2026 18:23
I stacy stout support and recommend the bill to be passed in support of handler dispatch in the state of WV. It will help alot of wild game to be harvested instead of wasted as well as humanley dispatched instead of possibly suffering for days.
2026 Regular Session HB5645 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Rick Wilson on February 18, 2026 17:10
As a person of faith, I'm very concerned about this bill. If enacted, it would basically weaponize bureaucracy to take food and health care away from low-income and working families. At the same time, it would take away money and jobs from businesses and health care providers across the state. Being poor or hungry or sick are not crimes, but this bill would punish those whom Jesus called "the least among you." He also said that whatever harm or good is done to them is also done to him. I urge you to table this bill for the good of all of us.
2026 Regular Session HB5645 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Alexandra Gallo on February 18, 2026 16:42
Please vote NO on this bill. Extremely harmful and very costly to our state.
2026 Regular Session HB5640 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 18, 2026 16:35
I oppose HB 5640 because it strips fundamental property protections from a huge category of West Virginians by eliminating redemption for “non-owner-occupied” property and replacing meaningful remedies with a narrow damages-only pathway—even when notice fails. 1) It eliminates the right to redeem for “non-owner-occupied” property HB 5640 states that for property that does not qualify as “owner-occupied,” “no right of redemption exists” and no repurchase/buy-back/equitable extension applies.  That means people can permanently lose property (including rentals, inherited homes, small family lots, or homes in probate) without any chance to cure the delinquency after sale, even if circumstances were temporary. 2) It lets the State decide “owner-occupied” status administratively—without a hearing—and shifts the burden heavily onto the owner The bill defines “owner-occupied property,” then says the Auditor determines that status administratively “without the need for an evidentiary hearing,” and the determination is presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.  That is a high burden, and mistakes are foreseeable—especially for seniors, people with unstable housing, people temporarily away for medical care, people whose records don’t match, or families dealing with estates. 3) It limits judicial remedies so much that even proven notice failures may not restore title For non-owner-occupied property, HB 5640 creates a tight set of limits: suit must be filed within one year, proof must be clear and convincing of a constitutional failure of notice, “technical defects” don’t count, and the court can’t set aside the deed unless the plaintiff proves the failure of notice “probably affected the outcome.”  Most importantly: the exclusive remedy becomes monetary damages and “title shall remain vested in the purchaser,” and “no redemption, repurchase, or recovery of title is permitted.”  That is a major shift away from real property restoration, and it incentivizes aggressive tax-lien purchasing because the buyer’s title is protected even when notice was defective. 4) It creates a pipeline for displacement and speculation—not “reform” The bill’s stated goal is to treat non-owner-occupied property as “abandoned, rental, speculative, or non-primary residence.”  But in real life, “non-owner-occupied” includes:
  • inherited property during probate,
  • modest rentals (small landlords),
  • properties where owners are temporarily displaced,
  • lots tied up in family disputes,
  • homes where documentation lags behind reality.
HB 5640 would make those properties easier to convert into investor title and harder for regular people to recover—even when the government’s notice process fails. 5) While the bill adds “enhanced notice,” it still doesn’t justify eliminating redemption and stripping remedies Yes, HB 5640 requires multiple notice methods for non-owner-occupied property (certified mail + first-class mail + posting + publication + an additional method if certified mail is returned).  But the same bill also says “substantial compliance” counts (while noting constitutional due process still applies).  If the Legislature admits due process limits still exist, it makes no sense to simultaneously lock people out of recovery of title and force damages-only outcomes. What I’d support instead (simple fixes) If lawmakers truly want “reform,” amend HB 5640 to:
  • Keep a limited redemption window for non-owner-occupied property (even 30–90 days) where the delinquency is cured plus costs.
  • Require a real appeal/hearing on owner-occupied classification before rights are cut off.
  • Allow courts to set aside deeds when notice is constitutionally defective (not damages-only).
  • Add protections for estates/probate, heirs property, and hardship situations.
2026 Regular Session HB5645 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Rhonda Rogombe on February 18, 2026 16:34
My name is Rhonda, I'm the health and safety net analyst at the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy. For the past 5.5 years, I've studied Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs, working alongside the agency and other stakeholders to better understand policy as well as talking to enrollees about their experiences and how these programs have helped them survive. HR 1 will cost the state $1 billion in health care cuts, thousands of jobs, and millions of dollars in our state economy. In short, this bill will harm the state budget, economy, and qualified enrollees of these programs. HR 1, the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, has drastically shifted the safety net and brings new requirements to Medicaid and SNAP. It promises savings, but it actually shifts the costs of these programs from the federal government to the state. It also creates additional costs to administer these programs onto the state while handcuffing funding options, putting the state legislature in a difficult position. Medicaid and SNAP already verify information with data checks automatically and they have gotten more efficient in recent year. But this bill would increase data checks them exponentially, which the state will pay for on an individual level; that is, each data check will cost the state money to run. Increasing the frequency of these checks does not guarantee improved efficiency or program outcomes as people enrolled in the program are already required to share updated information by law. It'll simply cost the state millions of dollars. Furthermore, the administrative burden on staff who will run these data checks will play a significant role in case outcomes. Any mistakes drawn from additional steps in the process could contribute to an increased error rate, which could mean the state paying millions more dollars for its share of SNAP. As small communities with few grocers lose SNAP dollars, many will close, leaving entire communities without grocery stores and jobs that support them. We've seen this repeatedly in communities across the state and country. Furthermore, this bill goes beyond HR 1 by including people in the traditional Medicaid population -- not just expansion -- in increased redeterminations, ballooning the costs beyond existing cost projections associated with similar cuts. It will harm children, people with disabilities, and elders. And without flexibility for self-attestation and hardships, many people who have not yet been treated for serious, life-altering conditions or in emergency situations will be locked out of the very safety net intended to help them during these times. These rules go beyond federal requirements, which we expect to remove 50,000-100,000 people from Medicaid and thousands from SNAP over the course of the next decade. Most people will lose coverage not because they're not working or are determined ineligible, but because they weren't able to navigate the additional red tape this bill creates. During the Medicaid unwinding, 75% of people who lost coverage did so because of this reason, NOT because they no longer qualified. This bill will deepen these cuts, making the state a less healthy place to live. It will also increase the prevalence of chronic conditions and illnesses that people wait to treat until they are life-threatening, which will manifest in the ballooning of uncompensated care provided by hospitals that are already facing hardship due to HR 1 cuts. The state needs to prioritize health and food equity, but this bill seeks to make low-income families worse off by making these programs more difficult to access and qualify for, even if people are compliant with the law and regulations. HR 1 will already cost West Virginia $1 BILLION annually in health care cuts alone, much less food or any other area it touches; this bill will only increase that amount, and dramatically so. Furthermore, the fact that this bill goes neither through the health committee nor the finance committee feels egregious considering what issues it aims to touch. I thank you for you attention to this matter and urge you to vote no.
2026 Regular Session HB5645 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Lida Shepherd on February 18, 2026 15:52
HB 5645 would be an implementation nightmare for the Department of Health and Bureau for Medical Services – and the timing is extremely ill-conceived as DOH and BMS are currently navigating the implementation of sweeping changes within HR 1.  The additional miles of red tape in HB 5645 will set off the following cascade of problems for West Virginia:
  1. The complex administrative requirements in HB 5645 will increase our state’s payment error rate;
  2. When our payment error rates increase, West Virginia will have to cover more of the costs of both SNAP and Medicaid;
  3. Future legislatures will have to either identify new funding streams, or cuts will have to be made (with the latter being more likely);
  4. Health care system, local grocers, and our charitable food system will be left to manage the fallout from these cuts;
  5. West Virginians will lose critical access to food and healthcare.
 Among many harmful provisions to our state’s SNAP and Medicaid population, the bill would disallow the state to grant exemptions to work reporting requirements.  So for example, homeless people and veterans would not be granted an exemption from work reporting requirements and would lose critical access to SNAP.  Also recertification of SNAP and Medicaid eligibility would have to occur at least every three months.  More recertification requirements mean more chances of payment errors.  Absent a fiscal note from DHS and the Bureau for Medical Services, we have no idea what the extra reporting and verification would cost to implement.   HB 5645 is copycat legislation written by out of state interests with a mission to dismantle public programs like SNAP and Medicaid.   I urge the House Government Organization committee to not allow this bill to see the light of day.
2026 Regular Session HB5645 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Laura Dice Hill on February 18, 2026 15:47

I’m writing to oppose HB 5645. This bill would make it much harder for eligible West Virginia families to access SNAP by adding more paperwork, more frequent recertifications, and eliminating common-sense eligibility options. These changes would create confusion, increase administrative burden, and likely cause many qualified households to lose food assistance.

I urge you to oppose this bill.

2026 Regular Session HB5645 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Joshua Lohnes on February 18, 2026 15:37
Dear Delegate Philips and members of the WV House Committee on Government Organization, HB 4645, introduced on February 17th 2026, for review and debate by this committee would add significant fiscal and material burdens to the Department of Human Services to cross check multiple databases on a monthly, quarterly and yearly basis as another layer of bureaucracy to determine eligibility for the SNAP and Medicaid programs. The mandate would exist without providing funding for increases in the staff time required to process and verify the status of hundreds of thousands people enrolled in these programs across ours state. West Virginia already has stringent rules in place around enrollment and regular verification of eligibility for these programs. As a previous recipient of both SNAP and Medicaid, I can attest that households must already provide significant and regular proof of eligibility.  Most importantly, because the full effects of the federal H.R.1. "Big Beautiful Bill" on the state's cost-share and error rates for these programs are still uncertain, I would not advise advancing this bill without a full fiscal note and review of the implications of overburdening state employees already in the midst of navigating significant administrative changes to these programs. Sincerely, Dr. Joshua Lohnes    
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Mary Sanders on February 18, 2026 11:32
WV citizens need case management after disasters. Case management provides the support and tools needed to adequately recover from disaster. It offers ways to track the level of damage left after disaster. Case management is a necessary part of disaster recovery.
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Lora Pierce on February 18, 2026 10:57
As a Kanawha County resident, and a career in disaster recovery. I have witnessed first-hand the devastation of flooding disaster in our State.  There are hundreds of households still in need of assistance and I strongly support HB 5601 that would provide funding for Disaster Case Management through the Disaster Recovery Trust Fund.
2026 Regular Session HB5441 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Noah Smith on February 17, 2026 21:17

This legislation is premised on assumptions that are not supported by data, yet it carries a fiscal note that presents those assumptions as fact. Similar concerns apply to the presentation of HB 4025. Before advancing legislation of this magnitude, it is reasonable to ask whether leadership within the affected agencies, or the human resources professionals responsible for implementation, have been meaningfully consulted.

There is a documented reason agencies have sought removal from the Division of Personnel in recent years. This bill does not acknowledge that history, nor does it address whether the systemic issues that prompted those transitions have been resolved. If those issues remain unaddressed, agencies may continue to experience delays, limited responsiveness, and reduced flexibility in meeting operational needs.

The assumption that agencies will reduce staffing or administrative capacity as a result of this change is also questionable. Agencies will still be required to fill vacancies, maintain compliance, and respond to dynamic workforce demands, particularly those providing critical public services such as transportation, social services, and revenue administration. Any perceived cost savings must be weighed against potential impacts to service delivery, workforce stability, and operational autonomy.

If the intent is increased efficiency or cost containment, has data been examined to demonstrate that a centralized system produces better outcomes? Specifically, have vacancy rates, time-to-hire metrics, service delays, or workforce outcomes been compared across single-system and multi-system models? Without such analysis, claims of inefficiency or redundancy remain speculative.

Finally, this proposal runs counter to a decade-long trend of agencies moving away from centralized personnel administration. It is worth considering whether this legislation reflects a sustainable policy direction or one likely to be reversed by a future administration. Structural workforce decisions should be grounded in evidence, stakeholder input, and long-term operational realities, not assumptions.

2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: William Fisher on February 17, 2026 14:30
As a follow up to my previous comment and consultation with a committee member I should point out that it is crucial to have Disaster Case Management after an event to help move families to stability and a new normal, navigate complex recoveries from insurance and aid from FEMA and other sources, access financial help for housing and basic needs. In other words help develop a recovery plan for survivors and communities and to retain WV citizenship Thank you, Bill Fisher ( CPA retired)
2026 Regular Session HB5601 (Government Organization)
Comment by: William G Fisher on February 17, 2026 10:58
As a retired CPA and volunteer Chairperson of the Ohio Valley Flood Relief Group I am overwhelmed with the response of the  members of this group and their stewardship helping survivors of the June 2025 floods and their continued long-term recovery efforts. This group of federal, state, county and local government agencies, religious and secular agencies and volunteers including all volunteer caseworkers is a testament of how groups of all parties, denominations and diverse ordinary people can do extraordinary things with the funds and supplies required to recovery from a flood. The volunteers from labor, to casework, to administration of this recovery can be a case study for future disaster recoveries. The main leaders in funding in addition to FEMA has been donated services and supplies from various sources and actual funding raised by the United Way of the Upper Ohio Valley, The Community Foundation for the Ohio Valley, The Ohio County Commission and Catholic Charites of West Virginia. Sincerely , William G. Fisher (CPA Retired)
2026 Regular Session HB5513 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Joseph Jones on February 16, 2026 09:17
Cloud seeding should absolutely be banned in this state.  Our water is already contaminated enough.
2026 Regular Session HB5513 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Victoria I Waybright on February 14, 2026 08:17
Thank you. Smart move. We need to pass this. We are entering a very dangerous path of digital bondage and this is a start to maintaining some autonomy.
2026 Regular Session SB66 (Government Organization)
Comment by: marquele barnes on February 13, 2026 23:48
This bill is more efficient and the pros out weight the cons.
2026 Regular Session SB390 (Government Organization)
Comment by: marquele barnes on February 13, 2026 23:43
This is a great bill to be passed. I feel like there isn't many cons to this.
2026 Regular Session HB5491 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Troy Osborne on February 13, 2026 19:14
Hi, Having open captioning on movies is a great accessibility for wide diversity of audiences including seniors, children, and adults. We are looking forward to welcoming all of them and sharing our inclusion and support with them. Thank you. Sincerely, Troy Osborne
2026 Regular Session HB4175 (Government Organization)
Comment by: J. McMurray on February 13, 2026 15:39
Do not repeal the law requiring state inspections. Some cite expense and inconvience for an inspection every 2 years. What about a compromise, an inspection every 3 years? I've seen those clunkers from adjoining states. Loud exhausts, fenders flapping, missing bumpers, squealing brakes well past the warning indicator, burned out lights. A disaster involving them is a matter of when, not if. Approximately 37 U.S. states have some form of mandatory vehicle inspection, covering safety, emissions, or VIN verification. While it is true 14 states still require periodic (annual or biennial) safety inspections for vehicles.
2026 Regular Session HB5439 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Tom E Ressler on February 13, 2026 10:33
Would greatly appreciate if you and your colleagues support this legislation.  
2026 Regular Session SB390 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Peyton Levi on February 12, 2026 18:18
This bill lacks any direction for flood resiliency in our communities. Communities deserve civically engineered and nature-based solutions to flooding. I look at the community of Matewan and the importance of their floodwall that will help their community endure.  This bill is flawed in that it only goes so far as the warning system. Put more money towards flood resiliency in WV.
2026 Regular Session HB5441 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 11, 2026 13:34
I am submitting this comment in opposition to HB 5441 due to its structural impact on transparency, independent oversight, and public records access. As a taxpayer and regular requester under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act, my concern is not administrative efficiency, but whether this bill weakens structural accountability within state government. 1️⃣ Elimination of Independent Oversight HB 5441 eliminates the West Virginia State Personnel Board and consolidates authority under the West Virginia Division of Personnel. The Personnel Board historically provided: •Independent administrative hearings •Formal grievance records •Public decisions and findings Removing that board reduces separation between: •The agency making employment decisions, and •The body reviewing those decisions When oversight becomes internal to the same executive structure, independent review is diminished. ⸻ 2️⃣ Reduced Public Record Generation Formal grievance hearings and board rulings create documented records that are subject to disclosure under WV Code §29B-1-1. If grievance procedures are shortened or handled more internally under this bill: •Fewer formal hearings may occur •Fewer written findings may be produced •Fewer public decisions may exist That reduces the volume of discoverable documentation available to the public. Transparency is not only about whether records are technically subject to FOIA — it is also about whether those records are generated in the first place. ⸻ 3️⃣ Consolidation Increases Classification Shielding Risk HB 5441 centralizes personnel authority across multiple agencies into one system. Under WV Code §29B-1-4, agencies may withhold: •Personnel file information •Internal memoranda •Pre-decisional communications When more employment functions are consolidated under one personnel authority, a larger volume of records may be categorized as “personnel” or “internal HR material,” increasing the likelihood that exemptions are invoked broadly. This does not amend FOIA directly, but structurally it may expand the scope of documents shielded under existing exemptions. ⸻ 4️⃣ Loss of Agency-Specific Documentation Layers Previously, certain departments maintained separate merit systems. While that may have been administratively duplicative, it also created: •Separate rule filings •Separate reporting systems •Separate audit trails Consolidation reduces redundancy, but redundancy in government structure can serve as a safeguard against systemic error or misconduct. Centralizing hiring, classification, and grievance authority removes cross-agency comparison mechanisms that allow the public to detect patterns. ⸻ 5️⃣ No Replacement Independent Review Mechanism The bill does not clearly establish: •An independent appeals body outside the executive branch •A public reporting requirement for classification decisions •Mandatory publication of grievance outcomes Without these safeguards, oversight is weakened structurally. ⸻ Conclusion HB 5441 does not directly amend the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act. However, it: •Eliminates an independent personnel oversight board •Consolidates employment authority into one executive office •Potentially reduces the creation of formal grievance records •Expands the volume of records that may be categorized as internal personnel documents For citizens who rely on public records to monitor government hiring, classification, and grievance practices, these structural changes raise legitimate transparency concerns. I respectfully oppose HB 5441 unless amendments are added to: •Preserve independent review •Require public reporting of grievance outcomes •Clarify limits on personnel file exemptions •Ensure consolidated systems do not reduce public access to records Government efficiency should not come at the cost of reduced oversight.
2026 Regular Session HB5421 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 11, 2026 11:18
I respectfully oppose HB 5421 because I do not understand why this legislation is necessary at this time, nor has there been clear public justification regarding its fiscal impact on taxpayers. HB 5421 restricts public entities in West Virginia from purchasing or operating certain foreign-manufactured unmanned aircraft systems (drones), particularly those associated with “covered foreign entities.” While national security concerns are serious, this bill shifts significant financial burden onto state and local agencies — and ultimately taxpayers — without transparent cost analysis. If West Virginia agencies have already invested in foreign-manufactured drone systems, this bill would require replacement and transition costs. That includes:
  • Purchasing new U.S.-compliant systems
  • Training personnel on new equipment
  • Replacing software ecosystems
  • Disposing of existing equipment
  • Potential contract termination penalties
There has been no publicly presented fiscal impact statement detailing the total cost of replacing existing systems statewide. Additionally, if the concern is economic security and supply chain risk, I question why state procurement policies were not previously structured to prioritize domestic manufacturing. If tariffs on imported drone components increase costs, that further raises the issue of whether this bill will result in substantially higher equipment prices for agencies. Under Article X of the West Virginia Constitution, public funds must be expended for legitimate public purposes. Before mandating statewide equipment replacement, the Legislature should require:
  1. A full fiscal impact disclosure.
  2. A statewide inventory of currently used drone systems.
  3. A cost comparison between domestic and foreign alternatives.
  4. A clear explanation of how this bill improves operational safety or security beyond existing federal restrictions.
Furthermore, drone usage raises constitutional considerations under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures). Before expanding or restructuring drone procurement, the Legislature should ensure strong statutory guardrails governing data collection, retention, warrant requirements, and transparency. Public safety and national security are important. However, fiscal responsibility and constitutional oversight are equally important. Without a clear demonstration of necessity, cost transparency, and operational safeguards, I cannot support HB 5421.
2026 Regular Session HB5403 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Daniel Tracey on February 11, 2026 11:07
This Bill is a definite must have. There are far too many businesses being operated in these type of structures simply to get around life safety and tax provisions, and across this nation we have tragic and disastrous results. When all that is required in WV to become Ag Exempt is to put a couple bee hives on your property, as this currently stands, this is a gross oversight and mismanaged situation.
2026 Regular Session HB5405 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 11, 2026 09:59
I respectfully oppose HB 5405 as introduced. While the bill is framed as a transparency measure requiring reporting by “institutional landowners” owning 1,000 or more acres, its structure raises legitimate concerns about land consolidation, unequal market power, and long-term rural access in West Virginia. West Virginia already faces significant land concentration. Large timber, energy, and development interests control substantial acreage across multiple counties. When ownership reaches this scale, it affects:
  • Property access and local housing supply
  • Agricultural competition
  • Mineral and timber market pricing
  • Rural tax base stability
  • Community development patterns
HB 5405 creates a formal classification of “institutional landowners” without establishing guardrails addressing concentration effects, anti-competitive risks, or community impact protections. The bill requires reporting of:
  • Acreage and land use
  • Timber value
  • Carbon credit and sequestration agreements
  • Revenues derived from land
  • Tax generation data
However, it does not:
  • Provide public access standards to ensure transparency benefits citizens
  • Establish enforcement penalties for noncompliance
  • Address how reported data will prevent harmful land aggregation
  • Protect small landowners or family farms from displacement pressures
Under Article III, §10 of the West Virginia Constitution (Due Process) and Article III, §17 (Open Courts), the Legislature must ensure that economic structures do not effectively privilege one class of landowner over others through regulatory design or policy reliance. When the state formally recognizes large landholding entities and builds economic reporting infrastructure around them, it risks normalizing and institutionalizing land concentration without addressing market imbalance. West Virginia’s rural communities already struggle with:
  • Limited housing availability
  • Reduced farmland accessibility
  • Concentrated mineral and timber control
  • Economic dependency on large industrial landholders
If the Legislature is concerned about transparency, then HB 5405 should also include:
  • Public database access
  • Anti-monopoly safeguards
  • Protections for small agricultural producers
  • Review of tax equity between large and small landowners
Absent those protections, this bill may unintentionally reinforce structural dependence on large consolidated land ownership without solving the underlying access and equity issues facing West Virginia residents. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 5405 unless amended to include meaningful safeguards for small landowners, rural communities, and fair market access.
2026 Regular Session HB5404 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 11, 2026 09:49
I respectfully submit this public comment in opposition to HB 5404 as introduced. HB 5404 creates a new Office of Entrepreneurship within the Secretary of State’s Office and appropriates $350,000 for fiscal years 2027 and 2028 to fund two full-time employees. While supporting small businesses is an important goal, this bill raises several policy and accountability concerns. First, West Virginia already maintains multiple agencies engaged in business assistance and economic development, including the West Virginia Department of Economic Development (W. Va. Code § 5B-2-1 et seq.) and related state business support programs. HB 5404 does not clearly define how this new office would avoid duplication of services, fragmentation of oversight, or administrative redundancy. Second, the bill does not establish measurable performance standards, reporting requirements, or audit mechanisms. There is no statutory requirement for public reporting on businesses assisted, outcomes achieved, job creation metrics, or compliance with state law. When public funds are appropriated, transparency and accountability should be mandatory under principles consistent with the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (W. Va. Code § 29B-1-1 et seq.) and sound fiscal oversight practices. Third, the bill does not include nondiscrimination or equitable-access language tied to state-supported assistance. Any office that provides state-backed support to businesses should explicitly require compliance with the West Virginia Human Rights Act (W. Va. Code § 5-11-1 et seq.) and applicable federal civil rights laws to ensure public resources are administered fairly. Fourth, fiscal prioritization remains a concern. West Virginia continues to face infrastructure, public health, and workforce challenges. Creating a new administrative office without clearly demonstrated need, performance metrics, or statutory guardrails risks expanding bureaucracy without guaranteeing measurable benefit to residents. If the Legislature chooses to advance HB 5404, it should be amended to include: • Clear coordination language to prevent duplication with existing economic development agencies, • Mandatory annual public reporting and independent audit requirements, • Explicit nondiscrimination compliance standards, • Sunset review provisions to evaluate effectiveness. For these reasons, I respectfully urge reconsideration or amendment of HB 5404.
2026 Regular Session HB5392 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 11, 2026 08:51
Oppose as drafted unless amended to prevent legal uncertainty, contract impairment claims, and avoidable taxpayer/court waste. I support consumer protection and professional standards in principle. However, HB 5392 is written in a way that risks avoidable litigation and administrative disruption because it creates new licensing/contract regimes without clear transition rules for claims and contracts already underway. 1) The bill creates legal uncertainty that invites lawsuits and wastes taxpayer resources HB 5392 creates a brand-new regulatory article (§33-64-1 through §33-64-9) and sets an effective date of July 1, 2026.  But the bill text (as introduced) does not clearly state whether it applies only to contracts signed on/after the effective date, or whether it reaches:
  • existing public adjuster contracts already in force,
  • ongoing claim files,
  • or disputes already pending.
That omission matters because the bill imposes new mandatory requirements such as:
  • mandatory licensing to “act as or hold [oneself] out” as an adjuster (§33-64-2(a))  
  • new contract rules and rescission requirements (§33-64-3)  
  • new “insured’s rights” notices and conduct rules (§33-64-4)  
  • new fiduciary trust-account handling requirements (§33-64-5)  
  • new fee/commission limits and conditions (§33-64-6)  
If these are interpreted to affect pre-existing agreements, the state is essentially inviting disputes over whether prior contracts are now “noncompliant,” whether compensation is altered, and whether ongoing work becomes unlawful. Even if the state ultimately wins, that’s still more hearings, more enforcement costs, more court time, and more taxpayer waste. 2) Retroactive impairment of contracts is constitutionally risky West Virginia and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit laws impairing contracts:
  • WV Constitution, Art. III, §4: “No… law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed.”  
  • U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §10, cl. 1: “No State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”  
If HB 5392 is applied to agreements already signed (or to compensation rights already vested), it creates a predictable basis for Contract Clause challenges and related due process litigation. The Legislature should not pass a bill that can be reasonably argued to “fix” a regulatory gap after agreements are already in place, without explicitly limiting the bill’s reach. 3) HB 5392 confirms the insured—not the insurer—is obligated to pay the public adjuster, but it still creates state enforcement burdens The bill’s disclosure language states that the public adjuster’s fee is the obligation of the insured, not the insurer.  That may clarify private payment responsibility, but it does not eliminate taxpayer exposure to regulatory overhead and enforcement costs—especially if the bill triggers disputes about how existing contracts/claims must be handled after July 1, 2026.  4) The financial-responsibility “bond” floor appears too low to realistically protect consumers HB 5392 requires financial responsibility, including a surety bond minimum of $5,000 (or a letter of credit minimum of $50,000).  For many property losses, $5,000 is not meaningful protection if a public adjuster’s misconduct causes larger harm. Under-protective bonding increases the chance harmed residents seek relief through complaints and contested proceedings—again increasing enforcement and court burdens. 5) The bill expands rulemaking and enforcement authority without clearly requiring a low-cost, self-funded implementation structure HB 5392 authorizes the Insurance Commissioner to promulgate rules.  But the bill does not clearly require that implementation and enforcement be funded through licensing/fees rather than general revenue. If the Legislature is concerned about taxpayer waste, it should not create a new regulatory system without explicit fiscal guardrails. Requested amendments (to prevent waste and reduce liability risk) If the Legislature wants standards reform, it should fix the drafting problems:
  1. Add an explicit prospective-only clause, such as: “This article applies only to contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2026, and does not impair existing contracts or vested rights.” (This directly reduces Contract Clause litigation risk.)  
  2. Add a transition/grandfather provision for ongoing claims and existing adjuster engagements so current claims are not disrupted mid-stream.
  3. Strengthen consumer financial protection, including re-evaluating whether a $5,000 bond is adequate to cover foreseeable harms.  
  4. Require a self-funded implementation model, ensuring staffing/enforcement costs are covered by license fees—not general revenue.
Conclusion HB 5392 may be presented as “professional standards,” but as drafted it creates avoidable legal uncertainty and invites expensive disputes about how the new rules interact with prior agreements and ongoing claims. That is exactly the kind of preventable state waste and court congestion that taxpayers should not have to fund. For these reasons, I oppose HB 5392 unless amended to make its application clearly prospective and fiscally responsible. 
2026 Regular Session HB5403 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Alan Roby on February 11, 2026 07:00

I am writing in support of WV House Bill 5403.

This bill represents a meaningful and necessary step toward improving public safety in our state. The facilities currently operating under the existing exemption are, in effect, functioning without appropriate regulatory oversight. We are fortunate that West Virginia has not yet experienced a preventable tragedy associated with these conditions.

The structures in question constitute a clear change in occupancy classification. An exemption originally intended for infrequent, private events, such as a family member’s or neighbor’s wedding, has increasingly been applied to recurring, for-profit assembly uses. When a building functions as an assembly occupancy, it should be subject to the life safety requirements designed for that level of public risk.

Allowing large gatherings without consistent application of fire and life safety standards places the attending public in an unnecessarily vulnerable position. House Bill 5403 helps ensure that regulatory intent aligns with actual use and promotes reasonable safeguards for those who attend these events.

For these reasons, I respectfully support the passage of this bill.

2026 Regular Session HB4617 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Blanche Rybeck on February 10, 2026 10:43
Vote no to HB4617 and SB615.  Maintain the independence and integrity of our State Law Enforcement.  Do not subjugate our officers to a federal entity that now has a record of lack of due process, false arrest and deadly misuse of force.  Our officers have a right and a responsibility ro follow best practice.
2026 Regular Session HB5251 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Brian Powell on February 8, 2026 20:49
I support this bill. West Virginia is an outlier in not providing these protections. This bill makes the state more attractive to businesses that expect these sorts of protections for their employees.
2026 Regular Session HB5251 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Annette Yurkovich Brichford on February 8, 2026 02:54
I wholeheartedly support this bill as a cisgender heterosexual West Virginian. The West Virginia Human Rights Act should be expanded to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Discrimination against anyone should have no place in our state; this bill is long overdue.
2026 Regular Session HB5251 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Kelli Stuckey on February 7, 2026 21:24
Please include this very important addition to represent all of friends, family and neighbors. We all deserve these basic protections by law. Please support.
2026 Regular Session HB5240 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 15:21
I oppose HB 5240 as written due to its lack of clarity, policy inconsistency, and failure to address existing executive-level import restrictions, which creates confusion for constituents and regulated entities. Factual Background
  • In 2022, the Governor of West Virginia issued an Executive Order directing the Alcohol Beverage Control Administration (ABCA) to halt the purchase and sale of Russian-produced liquor, including Russian vodka, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
  • That action was executive, not statutory, and was implemented through state-controlled alcohol distribution, not codified into the West Virginia Code.
  • HB 5240 amends §11-16-10 of the West Virginia Code, which governs nonintoxicating beer, by creating a temporary Class T import license allowing out-of-state beer to be imported for limited events such as festivals and test marketing.
Where the Conflict Exists While HB 5240 does not explicitly repeal or reference the 2022 executive ban on Russian-produced liquor, it creates a policy conflict and regulatory ambiguity by:
  1. Expanding alcohol import permissions in statute while existing executive restrictions on foreign alcohol products remain unresolved and uncodified.
  2. Failing to clarify whether temporary import licenses are subject to:
    • existing executive orders,
    • federal sanctions regimes, or
    • state-level trade or procurement restrictions.
  3. Leaving enforcement to administrative discretion without statutory guardrails, which raises equal-protection, uniform enforcement, and transparency concerns under Article III, §10 of the West Virginia Constitution (separation of powers).
Why This Matters
  • West Virginia operates a control state alcohol system, meaning clarity in alcohol import authority is essential.
  • When executive bans exist outside statute, and the Legislature expands import authority without harmonization, it creates:
    • inconsistent enforcement,
    • legal uncertainty for license holders,
    • and public confusion about which products are permitted.
  • If the Legislature intends to maintain foreign-product restrictions, that policy should be explicitly addressed in statute, not left to executive orders that may expire, be modified, or be selectively enforced.
Statutory and Constitutional Concerns
  • W. Va. Code §11-16-10: governs nonintoxicating beer but does not address foreign trade restrictions.
  • W. Va. Constitution, Art. III §10: requires laws to be applied uniformly and not left to arbitrary enforcement.
  • Administrative law principles require that agencies act pursuant to clear legislative authority, not unresolved executive directives.
My Position I oppose HB 5240 unless amended to:
  1. Clearly state that temporary import licenses are subject to all existing executive orders and trade restrictions, or
  2. Require the Legislature to formally codify, repeal, or sunset prior alcohol import bans, including those related to foreign conflicts, to ensure transparency and consistency.
West Virginians deserve clear law, not overlapping policy signals. Alcohol regulation — especially involving imports — must be explicit, uniform, and accountable.
2026 Regular Session HB5251 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Vanessa Reaves on February 6, 2026 13:36
Please pass this bill that would expand protecting all of West Virginians regardless of their gender or who they love.
2026 Regular Session HB5200 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 6, 2026 12:15
I respectfully submit this public comment in opposition to HB 5200 as introduced because it fails to address foundational legal realities affecting West Virginia workers and undermines accountability in areas critical to economic fairness. 1. Employment is Predominantly “At-Will” in West Virginia Under established West Virginia employment law, the default employment relationship is at-will, meaning employers may terminate most employees for any reason or no reason at all unless prohibited by statute or contractual proviso. This doctrine is recognized under West Virginia common law and confirmed by state jurisprudence, subject to limited exceptions such as illegal discrimination, contractual terms, or clear public-policy violations.  Because at-will employment is the norm, proposed economic development and “entrepreneurship support” initiatives like HB 5200 risk benefitting employers and business interests more than workers, without strengthening employee protections, due process, job security standards, or meaningful recourse for wrongful termination. 2. Statutory and Case Law Protections are Limited While the at-will rule prevails, West Virginia does acknowledge exceptions:
  • Public policy exception – employees cannot be fired for reasons violating a substantial public policy (e.g., refusing to break laws or reporting illegal conduct).  
  • Contractual protections – written or implied contracts may override the at-will presumption.  
However, these exceptions are narrow and difficult for most workers to prove in practice. Without additional statutory protections tied to state economic policy, new business initiatives do not inherently improve worker security. 3. Anti-Discrimination Law Does Not Fully Protect Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity at the State Level West Virginia statutes do not expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision means that such discrimination is unlawful in employment under federal law, state law has not yet codified these additional protections.  This legal gap means that:
  • Employers in West Virginia may still lack clear statutory deterrence against discrimination targeting LGBTQ+ employees unless federal standards are enforced.
  • Without robust state nondiscrimination statutes tied to business development programs, newly supported businesses could perpetuate exclusion without consequence.
4. Right-to-Work Law Limits Collective Bargaining Power West Virginia’s right-to-work statute, originally enacted in 2016, affects union membership and the financial sustainability of collective bargaining. It prohibits certain mandatory union dues arrangements, which can weaken organized worker power to negotiate conditions and protections.  This statutory framework — combined with at-will employment — makes it easier for employers to dismiss workers without robust protections, even in growing businesses supported by state programs. 5. Lack of Transparency and Oversight in Private Business Incentives HB 5200 as drafted focuses on coordination and promotion of entrepreneurship without establishing:
  • statutory transparency requirements for business support programs,
  • audit and reporting mechanisms for jobs created, retained, or subsidized by state support,
  • oversight to ensure that publicly endorsed businesses comply with fair-employment practices.
Without these statutory guardrails, economic development initiatives may produce “ghost jobs,” inflated job-creation claims, or state support for entities that do not deliver equitable economic outcomes. Summary of Concerns
  1. WV law presumes at-will employment, which allows employer terminations without cause except for limited legal exceptions.  
  2. State statutes do not expressly address LGBTQ+ protections by sexual orientation or gender identity in WV employment law.  
  3. The right-to-work law (§21-1A-3) has impacted union leverage and collective bargaining, weakening worker rights.  
  4. HB 5200 lacks meaningful oversight, accountability, and equity provisions tied to state support for private business.
Suggested Legislative Priorities If West Virginia is serious about inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship, the Legislature should consider amending HB 5200 to include:
  • Statutory definitions of equitable hiring standards and anti-discrimination protections extending to sexual orientation and gender identity,
  • Independent audit/reporting requirements for jobs tied to state programs,
  • Worker protections and due process rights that supplement the at-will default,
  • Enforceable transparency measures for any business receiving public support.
2026 Regular Session HB4025 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Cindy Murphy on February 4, 2026 08:32
It is ridiculous to once again try to take protections away from civil servants, including those you have yet to hire. This is a bad bill.
2026 Regular Session HB5100 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 11:06
I oppose House Bill 5100 based on public-health, regulatory, and patient-impact concerns. While I do not support kratom, and acknowledge that several states — including California — have taken steps to restrict or prohibit kratom due to safety, contamination, and adverse-event concerns, HB 5100 improperly bundles kratom regulation with hemp-derived cannabinoids and shifts oversight to the Alcohol Beverage Control Administration (ABCA), creating harmful and unintended consequences for medical cannabis patients and regulated healthcare access. 1. Kratom and Medical Cannabis Require Separate Regulatory Treatment California and other jurisdictions have raised legitimate concerns about kratom due to:
  • Lack of FDA approval
  • Reports of contamination, adulteration, and inconsistent potency
  • Documented adverse health outcomes and dependence risks
Medical cannabis, by contrast, is:
  • Regulated under a physician-certified medical program
  • Subject to controlled dispensing, tracking, and testing
  • Used by patients with chronic pain, cancer, neurological disorders, and other qualifying conditions when traditional pharmaceuticals fail
HB 5100 fails to maintain this distinction by collapsing non-medical substances (kratom) and regulated cannabinoid products under a single enforcement-oriented framework. 2. Shifting Oversight to Alcohol Beverage Control Is Inappropriate for Medical Contexts The ABCA is structured for alcohol control and enforcement, not medical or agricultural public-health regulation. Applying an alcohol-style regulatory model to cannabinoid products risks:
  • Treating medically relevant substances as recreational intoxicants
  • Prioritizing enforcement and penalties over patient access and safety
  • Creating chilling effects for lawful commerce that supports medical patients
Medical cannabis patients should not be indirectly penalized or stigmatized through regulatory frameworks designed for alcohol or non-medical substances. 3. Risk of Increased Barriers for Medical Cannabis Patients HB 5100 introduces regulatory ambiguity that may:
  • Discourage lawful businesses that also serve medical cannabis patients
  • Increase compliance costs that are passed on to patients
  • Confuse consumers and employers regarding legality, testing, and enforcement standards
West Virginia already has a functioning medical cannabis program. Policies that indirectly undermine patient access contradict the program’s intent and public-health goals. 4. California’s Kratom Reasoning Does Not Justify Broad Cannabinoid Restrictions California’s approach to kratom is based on specific safety findings, not a blanket opposition to cannabinoid-based medical therapies. Using kratom concerns to justify broader regulatory shifts affecting hemp-derived cannabinoids and medical cannabis is not evidence-based and risks harming patients who rely on regulated medical treatment. 5. Public Health Is Better Served by Targeted Regulation, Not Consolidation If kratom presents safety risks, it should be regulated or restricted on its own merits, using health-based standards. Folding kratom into a broader alcohol-style control system does not improve safety and instead creates collateral harm to unrelated medical programs. Conclusion I oppose HB 5100 because it:
  • Improperly conflates kratom with medically relevant cannabinoid products
  • Places public-health substances under an alcohol enforcement agency
  • Risks undermining West Virginia’s medical cannabis program and patient access
  • Fails to reflect the nuanced, evidence-based reasoning used by states like California when addressing kratom specifically
Medical cannabis patients should not bear the consequences of regulatory decisions aimed at unrelated substances.
2026 Regular Session HB4130 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Suzana on February 3, 2026 10:13
If an animal is in an abusive shelter it can negativity impact the behavioral and psychological health of an animal, which can also reduces their chances for adoption.
2026 Regular Session HB5064 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 09:42
I oppose House Bill 5064 because it expands state control over municipalities without creating any corresponding expansion of accountability, ethics enforcement, or transparency, and it risks punishing residents for structural failures they did not cause. HB 5064 frames itself as “strengthening oversight,” but in practice it only strengthens administrative enforcement and state takeover authority, not public accountability. The bill does not expand the jurisdiction or investigatory authority of ethics bodies, does not lower the threshold for review of misconduct, and does not address systemic failures that occur without direct personal financial benefit to an individual. Under current ethics law, institutional mismanagement, negligence, or policy-driven harm remains outside enforceable ethics review, and HB 5064 leaves that gap entirely intact. The bill allows municipalities to be labeled as experiencing “chronic audit noncompliance” after multiple years of failed audits, yet it does not require an analysis of root causes, such as underfunding, staffing shortages, unfunded state mandates, infrastructure decay, or prior state policy decisions that may have contributed to those failures. Instead, the response mechanism is dissolution and state receivership — a remedy that transfers control upward without assigning responsibility downward. HB 5064 also raises due-process concerns by enabling the loss of municipal self-governance based on compliance outcomes rather than demonstrated misconduct. The bill provides no meaningful avenue for residents to contest dissolution, no requirement for independent review, and no mechanism for public findings regarding conflicts of interest, regulatory failures, or state involvement in creating fiscal distress. Most critically, the bill targets municipalities as entities rather than decision-makers, shielding individuals and institutions that may have contributed to fiscal collapse while exposing residents, ratepayers, and workers to the consequences of dissolution. This approach converts audit enforcement into a punitive tool rather than a corrective one. True oversight would include:
  • Expanded ethics jurisdiction over systemic and institutional misconduct
  • Independent review mechanisms
  • Transparent findings on causation and responsibility
  • Remedies focused on recovery rather than elimination of local governance
HB 5064 does none of these. It centralizes authority without strengthening ethics enforcement, public transparency, or democratic accountability. For these reasons, the bill should be rejected or substantially amended.
2026 Regular Session HB5063 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on February 3, 2026 09:34
I oppose House Bill 5063 because it further fragments tourism funding and governance while failing to provide meaningful, independent oversight of public funds. West Virginia’s tourism functions have already been absorbed into broader executive and economic-development structures, rather than operating as a clearly independent agency. HB 5063 compounds this fragmentation by dispersing hotel occupancy tax authority and compliance responsibilities across county commissions, convention and visitors bureaus, and state-level entities without establishing clear audit authority, enforcement standards, or uniform accountability mechanisms. The bill substitutes rigid operational formulas and compliance mandates for real oversight. Prescribed spending percentages, staffing and office requirements, and accreditation mandates do not ensure fiscal integrity, especially when audit discretion, FOIA enforcement, and ethics review authority have been narrowed unless specific triggering conditions are met. This creates the appearance of accountability without providing the legal tools necessary to investigate misuse, inefficiency, or conflicts of interest. Additionally, allowing county commissioners to serve as voting members of convention and visitors bureaus blurs the line between oversight and operational control, increasing the risk of conflicts of interest while reducing independent governance. HB 5063 increases administrative burden, reduces local flexibility, and disperses responsibility for public funds at a time when transparency and enforceable oversight should be strengthened, not diluted. For these reasons, I urge the Legislature to oppose HB 5063.
2026 Regular Session HB4679 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Ron Hurst III on January 31, 2026 16:07
The fact that this is even allowed is just ignorant. Taxpayers PAY county commissions (and other local offices) to do their jobs. Then they turn right around and use MORE of our own money to pay lobbyists to do part of their jobs for them. That's just a lazy and wasteful approach. Pass this bill ASAP please!
2026 Regular Session HB5009 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on January 30, 2026 12:26
I oppose HB 5009 because it quietly redefines private property rights by narrowing what legally counts as a protected “use” of land, particularly regarding water and natural resources. While the bill does not remove title ownership, it significantly limits landowners’ control over the economic use of their own property by excluding commercial extraction, transport, storage, or off-site use from zoning protections. Ownership without meaningful control is not true ownership. By allowing zoning authorities to prohibit entire categories of resource use—even when the land and resources are privately owned—this bill shifts property rights from ownership to conditional permission. Landowners retain liability, taxes, and maintenance obligations while the state and local governments retain decision-making power over value and use. This framework disproportionately harms small landowners, rural residents, and non-corporate property holders, while favoring large entities with grandfathered uses, political leverage, or state-aligned projects. It also raises long-term concerns about water security, resource access, and unequal bargaining power as water and energy infrastructure become more strategically valuable. If the Legislature intends to regulate commercial extraction, it should do so transparently through environmental and resource-specific statutes—not by redefining “use” in a way that erodes core property rights through zoning law. For these reasons, HB 5009 should not advance without substantial revision.
2026 Regular Session HB4876 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on January 30, 2026 11:00
I strongly oppose HB 4876 and urge members of the Legislature to consider the real public safety and child welfare implications of eliminating the work permit system for minors. 1.Work permits currently serve as one of the few proactive safeguards in West Virginia’s child labor framework by requiring verification of a minor’s age, school status, and job description before employment begins. Eliminating this system and replacing it with employer-kept “age certificates” substantially reduces state visibility into where and how minors are being employed.   2.Under current West Virginia child labor law (§21-6-2), children under 18 may not be employed in dangerous or injurious occupations or in establishments where alcohol is served. These restrictions are legally enforceable only if there is documentation and enforcement capacity.   3.Without work permits, enforcement becomes largely reactive and complaint-driven rather than preventive. Employers in private, non-state-funded businesses are currently informed of child labor laws but are not routinely inspected, meaning compliance often depends on voluntary adherence rather than oversight. This creates a regulatory gap that can lead to violations going undetected until harm occurs. 4.Federal child labor standards (29 CFR Part 570) already prohibit minors under 18 from operating, feeding, setting up, adjusting, repairing, or cleaning many types of machinery — including meat processing equipment and similar industrial tools.   Without adequate oversight, there is a heightened risk that employers will place minors in roles they are legally prohibited from performing simply because the state has no routine check of job duties. 5.Labor advocates have pointed out that removing required documentation and oversight weakens protections for young workers and could set a dangerous precedent for child labor rights in West Virginia.   In effect, HB 4876 makes it easier for employers to hire minors without sufficient verification of job appropriateness, reducing the ability of the state to protect children from hazardous work, age-inappropriate tasks, or unsafe environments. Laws without enforcement mechanisms are ineffective at preventing exploitation or harm. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Legislature to reject HB 4876 or amend it to preserve meaningful oversight and protective safeguards for minors.
2026 Regular Session HB4854 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on January 30, 2026 10:25
I oppose House Bill 4854. House Bill 4854 amends §5B-2-21a of the West Virginia Code to establish a High Impact Data Center Program within the Division of Economic Development. Although the bill prohibits direct state or local subsidization of data centers, it nevertheless prioritizes large private data center operations as critical infrastructure without providing corresponding protections, investments, or accountability measures for West Virginia communities, taxpayers, or small businesses. Specific concerns include:
  1. State Policy Focuses on Corporate Infrastructure Rather Than Community Needs The bill declares data centers to be “critical national infrastructure” and directs the Department of Economic Development to certify and accommodate these facilities. The bill does not include parallel findings or programs addressing the needs of residents, small businesses, local infrastructure, or essential public services such as water, wastewater, housing, healthcare, or workforce stability.
  2. Absence of Community Benefit or Local Impact Requirements HB 4854 does not require community benefit agreements, local hiring commitments, wage standards, infrastructure mitigation, or contributions to local public services. Counties and municipalities may still bear increased costs related to utilities, roads, emergency services, and environmental oversight without any statutory mechanism to offset those impacts.
  3. Indirect Costs Remain With Ratepayers and Taxpayers While the bill prohibits direct subsidies, it does not address indirect public costs associated with high-impact data centers, including increased demand on electric generation and transmission, water resources, wastewater treatment capacity, and environmental monitoring. These costs are likely to be absorbed by residents and ratepayers rather than the private operators benefiting from the infrastructure.
  4. Reduced Transparency Through Confidentiality Provisions The bill exempts data center business information from disclosure under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act. This limits public oversight of facilities that are explicitly designated as high-impact and critical infrastructure, even though their operations may significantly affect surrounding communities and public resources.
  5. Unequal Treatment Compared to Small Businesses and Local Enterprises Small businesses and local employers do not receive expedited certification, confidentiality protections, or legislative recognition as critical infrastructure. HB 4854 establishes a regulatory and policy framework tailored specifically to large corporate entities without comparable consideration for locally owned businesses that employ West Virginians and contribute to community stability.
  6. No Requirement to Align With Environmental or Infrastructure Capacity The bill does not require certification decisions to consider existing water quality issues, wastewater system capacity, environmental contamination, or cumulative infrastructure strain. This is particularly concerning in a state already facing documented challenges with water systems, sewage treatment, and environmental compliance.
Conclusion: HB 4854 reflects a continued legislative emphasis on attracting and accommodating large private data center operations while failing to address the documented needs of West Virginia communities, residents, and small businesses. Without enforceable community protections, transparency, or infrastructure safeguards, this bill shifts risk to the public while prioritizing corporate interests. For these reasons, I oppose House Bill 4854.
2026 Regular Session HB4025 (Government Organization)
Comment by: SS Walker on January 29, 2026 13:25
These employees should remain covered.  Part of the appeal of working for the state is having the secuirty of not losing your job everytime new administration in brought in. Unless current employees stay in their current position and take no promotions, they lose this security.  And in doing so, the departments lose the legacy knowledge they need to know what has been going on in the past.
2026 Regular Session HB4130 (Government Organization)
Comment by: toki on January 29, 2026 02:30
i'm down for this
2026 Regular Session HB4121 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Chris Hall, Executive Director of the WV EMS Coalition on January 28, 2026 15:42
On behalf of the West Virginia EMS Coalition, which represents over 80% of all emergency ambulance responses in the state, I would like to express our support for HB 4121 regarding the reporting duties of county commissions on ambulance services.
This bill was developed in response to legislative requests for information on how counties are delivery and funding EMS. Counties are increasingly passing levies, adopting ambulance fees, or making direct budget appropriations to support EMS within their counties yet there is no centralized system for collecting and reporting this information.
In working with the bill’s sponsor, we carefully crafted the legislation to ensure there were no unfunded mandates created for county commissions. We recognize a bill that imposes additional costs on counties would be difficult to pass.
The bill does require every county to make EMS service available without any requirement for funding it. Every county is already in compliance with the requirement.
Each county's 911 center has designated one or more emergency ambulance agencies for response, ensuring compliance with the proposed requirements.
Line 11 of the bill and current law says, "The county commission may provide the service directly through its agents, servants and employees; or through private enterprise; or by its designees; or by contracting with individuals, groups, associations, corporations or otherwise; or it may cause such services to be provided by an authority, as provided for in this article…” This existing law provides significant flexibility to counties in balancing emergency care and financial responsibility.
The current method of ensuring access to EMS in counties would remain unchanged. Approximately, half of West Virginia’s counties have established a county ambulance authority or a similar structure for the delivering of EMS. The rest designate or contract with a non-profit/private agency to provide the response.
For instance, Raleigh County, which designates agencies such as Jan-Care, Ghent VFD EMS, Best Ambulance, and Bradley-Prosperity VFD for EMS, will continue operating as they currently do without any additional funding requirements.
The bill does not impose any mandates that would result in increased costs for counties, including no provisions regarding the manner of emergency ambulance service delivery, the required number of ambulances per county, or specified response times.
The proposed deletion concerns outdated language from 1975 when the EMS Act was initially drafted. At that time, the modern EMS system in West Virginia was still developing, and not all counties had established centralized 911 systems or well-organized and regulated EMS agencies. Today, however, all counties provide EMS services in some manner. There is a consensus that EMS is an essential service, and no exemptions should be allowed for failing to provide life-saving response capabilities.

What HB 4121 does:

  • Explicitly require counties to make emergency ambulance service available.

  • EMS could be provided by county employees, an ambulance authority, private enterprise or by contracting for service (current law).

  • Counties would not be mandated to provide any minimum level of funding.

  • Counties would report annually the amount of county funds expended the prior fiscal year to fund emergency ambulance services.

  • The Office of EMS would compile an annual report on local EMS system structures and funding to help guide future policy and state funding decisions.

The WV EMS Coalition believes this legislation is an important step towards provide legislators with the information needed to support future decisions about the funding and structure of EMS in West Virginia. We hope the Legislature continues to advance this bill towards passage.
2026 Regular Session HB4005 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Vanessa Reaves on January 28, 2026 07:00
The state should not lower or weaken labor protections for our youth. The bill should maintain it's current language to uphold the standards.
2026 Regular Session HB4317 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Bryan Wilson on January 27, 2026 20:33

West Virginia’s current licensure reciprocity structure for school psychologists seeking to practice independently creates unnecessary barriers that ultimately limit student access to essential mental health and evaluation services. While licensure standards are intended to protect the public, the existing process is often overly restrictive compared to neighboring states and does not reflect the realities of today’s school psychology workforce.

School psychologists across the United States are trained under nationally aligned standards through NASP-approved programs, accredited university preparation, supervised internships, and standardized credentialing processes such as the Nationally Certified School Psychologist (NCSP) credential. These benchmarks already ensure high-quality preparation. Yet experienced, fully licensed school psychologists in other states frequently face duplicative hurdles when attempting to serve West Virginia students in private or independent practice settings.

This has several serious consequences:

1. Reduced Access to Services for Children and Families
West Virginia continues to face shortages in child mental health providers, especially in rural regions. School psychologists in private practice help fill critical gaps by providing psychoeducational evaluations, risk assessments, counseling, and consultation services that schools often lack capacity to deliver in a timely manner. Lengthy or uncertain reciprocity processes delay or prevent qualified professionals from serving children who are already waiting months for evaluations and supports.

2. Outdated Barriers in a Modern Service Delivery Era
The profession has evolved. Telehealth, remote assessment models, and cross-state consultation are now standard practice. Many surrounding states have adapted licensure pathways to reflect workforce mobility and the need for interstate collaboration. West Virginia risks falling behind if its policies do not align with contemporary service models and regional workforce patterns.

3. Duplication of Already-Verified Competency
Professionals seeking reciprocity are often already licensed as independent school psychologists or psychologists elsewhere, have years of experience, carry malpractice coverage, and may hold national credentials such as NCSP. Requiring redundant documentation, additional examinations, or prolonged approval timelines does not meaningfully enhance public safety — it simply restricts workforce supply.

4. Impact on Schools and Special Education Compliance
Schools depend on timely evaluations to meet IDEA timelines and provide Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). When external evaluators are scarce, districts struggle with compliance, and students experience delays in identification, intervention, and services. Expanding access to qualified reciprocal providers directly supports school systems in meeting federal mandates.

Recommended Modernizations

West Virginia could maintain strong professional standards while improving access through:

  • Streamlined reciprocity for professionals licensed in states with comparable standards

  • Recognition of NCSP as evidence of meeting training and competency requirements

  • Reduced duplicative documentation where credentials are already verified

  • Temporary or provisional licensure pathways while full review is completed

  • Alignment with interstate licensure mobility efforts seen in other health professions

Bottom Line

Modernizing reciprocity is not about lowering standards — it is about removing unnecessary barriers that prevent qualified professionals from serving children. West Virginia’s students, families, and schools benefit when licensure systems are rigorous and responsive to workforce realities. Updating reciprocity policies would strengthen service access, reduce evaluation backlogs, and support the state’s commitment to child mental health and educational equity.

2026 Regular Session HB4175 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Brittany Singhass on January 27, 2026 17:32
As a person who enjoys not giving the state more of my money, I say vote yes to pass this repeal. However, it does make me worry about the safety issues that could come with it in the next few years as people decide they don't need to perform upkeep to their vehicles.
2026 Regular Session HB4175 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Nicole Kirby on January 27, 2026 16:14
Vote yes. Car inspections take time and money we don’t have.
2026 Regular Session HB4175 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Nathan Music on January 27, 2026 15:31
I am writing to express my opposition to this bill repealing state automotive inspections.  These inspections are critical for maintaining some level of safety oversight for the vehicles on the road.  Regular safety inspections help identify and prevent failures to critical vehicle safety features such as worn brakes, steering and suspension components, bald tires, and failed lights.  Systems that the general public may not be able to identify on their own until they fail completely leading to break downs or accidents causing potential property damage, injury, or loss of life.  Lawmakers should be focusing on strengthening safety standards to protect our motorists and pedestrians instead of loosening them.  
2026 Regular Session HB4175 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Susie Nelson on January 27, 2026 14:14
As a resident of a county that boarders Ohio, I ask you to please vote no on this bill. We see vehicles in our county from the state of Ohio every day.  The state of Ohio does not require inspections.  Many of the Ohio cars we see would never pass a West Virginia inspection.  This bill would increase hazardous on-the-road situations like tail lights being out, mufflers falling off or being held on by wire, or even headlights not working properly.  Oftentimes, these minor auto issues go unnoticed by the owner until their inspection.  Please keep WV roads safe by NOT passing this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4819 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on January 27, 2026 10:55
I have concerns about HB 4819 because, while it limits automatic licensing denials based solely on criminal history, it does not meaningfully protect access to actual employment in an at-will, right-to-work state like West Virginia. Under HB 4819, licensing authorities may still deny or delay licensure based on a prior conviction if they determine a “rational nexus” between the offense and the occupation. Even when rehabilitation, time since conviction, and compliance with sentencing are considered, the decision remains discretionary, and mandatory waiting periods may still apply. This continues to impose post-sentence barriers to lawful work. More importantly, even when a license is granted, there is no guarantee of hiring, promotion, or advancement. West Virginia’s at-will employment framework allows employers to lawfully refuse to hire or promote someone without providing a reason. In practice, this means individuals may remain excluded based on past convictions or legal status, even when state law permits licensure. This gap already exists for other lawful statuses, including medical cannabis patients. Although medical cannabis is legal under state law, employers are not required to hire or promote cardholders. Employers may state that hiring decisions are “up to them,” effectively allowing exclusion based on status alone. HB 4819 risks creating the same outcome for people with prior convictions — legal eligibility on paper without real access to employment. As a result, HB 4819 may function as a procedural reform without a practical remedy, leaving individuals subject to continued economic exclusion through discretionary licensing and at-will employment practices. This undermines rehabilitation, workforce reintegration, and public safety goals, while increasing the likelihood of unemployment and dependence on state or local assistance. A true second-chance policy must address not only licensing eligibility, but the real-world effects of discretionary decision-making in an at-will employment system. Without that, the bill risks extending punishment beyond sentence completion through ongoing economic barriers.
2026 Regular Session HB4806 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on January 27, 2026 10:29
I appreciate the Legislature’s willingness to engage in thoughtful review of compensation structures for county elected officials. However, I respectfully oppose House Bill 4806 as currently drafted for the following reasons: 1. Principle of Equitable Compensation vs. Across-the-Board Increases While I acknowledge the importance of fair compensation for our Sheriffs — who perform critical public safety duties — I am not persuaded that a blanket statutory 10 % premium over County and Circuit Clerks is the most responsible approach. Compensation standards should reflect job responsibilities, county fiscal health, and transparent job-value assessments rather than rigid percentages enshrined in statute. 2. County Fiscal Responsibility and Certification Requirement HB 4806 retains the existing requirement that the County Auditor certify sufficient fiscal capacity before salary increases take effect. Yet, this safeguard alone does not ensure equitable budgeting prioritization, particularly in counties facing budgetary constraints or competing service demands. Counties should retain flexibility to adjust compensation based on local needs and economic conditions rather than a state-mandated pay structure. 3. Lack of Justification for Salary Differential The bill does not provide a legislative finding or data demonstrating why Sheriffs’ compensation should be specifically set at 10 % above the Clerk positions. Absent a comparative workload, complexity analysis, or statewide job study, this differential appears arbitrary and risks perceptions of preferential treatment among elected offices with different functions. 4. Impact on Recruitment, Retention, and County Budgets Although higher pay could improve recruitment and retention for Sheriffs, there is no guarantee that this statutory differential will yield those outcomes. Instead, counties may face increased fiscal strain if implementation is triggered in less fiscally resilient jurisdictions — potentially diverting resources from public safety, infrastructure, or essential services. 5. Alternative Recommendation Rather than enact a fixed percentage increase, I urge the Legislature to consider:
  • Commissioning an independent compensation study of county officials across all classes of counties;
  • Establishing a performance-based or cost-of-living adjusted compensation framework that respects local budget realities;
  • Providing optional guidelines or model compensation charts rather than hard targets.
Conclusion For these reasons, I respectfully urge opposition to HB 4806 as introduced. If the Legislature chooses to act on compensation reform for county officials, please do so with evidence-based justification, local flexibility, and a transparent process that balances fiscal responsibility with fair pay for public servants. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
2026 Regular Session HB4005 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jo Ellen Gabbert on January 27, 2026 09:38
Vote NO on HB 4005. This bill does nothing to protect children. It allows for their exploitation. Support education opportunities, healthcare for all children, and anti -poverty causes.  Stop this road to abuse!
2026 Regular Session HB4130 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Gina Myers on January 27, 2026 08:25

Dear House Finance Members,

Stricter animal cruelty laws are much needed in West Virginia, as are more facilities to house stray, surrendered, and seized animals. I’ve volunteered in rescue for many years and have witnessed first hand the abuse and neglect inflicted on animals, the impact of overpopulation on our communities, and overpopulated shelters turning people away or directing them to rescues with even less resources than the shelters have. It seems never ending from my position but stricter consequences for those doing harm would be a good start, as would funding for programs that support spay and neuter and more shelter facilities. Also, an appropriate outdoor shelter should be defined by law along with care requirements for breeders to prevent for-profit neglect. Investigation into these matters when reported to law enforcement in towns and counties that do not have a humane officer should be required.

Thanks for your consideration,

Gina Myers

2026 Regular Session HB4175 (Government Organization)
Comment by: George Caldwell on January 26, 2026 13:20
This is a must pass! Vehicle inspections across the country have been eliminated from other states. The inspection process does not eliminate poorly maintained vehicles on the roadways. It's an added cost and burden to citizens. This bill will bring relief and a small amount of revenue back to West Virginians.
2026 Regular Session HB4005 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jim McKay on January 26, 2026 12:41
I am writing on behalf of Prevent Child Abuse West Virginia. We urge Delegates to vote NO on HB 4005 because it places teenagers at risk of serious injury while operating dangerous machinery without adequate supervision. HB 4005 eliminates West Virginia's list of hazardous occupations prohibited for workers under 18 and weakens safety protections for children. The bill surrenders our state's authority over child workplace safety to federal bureaucrats. Despite an amendment addressing metal foundry work, the bill still allows 16-year-olds to work in:
  • Logging operations (Logging has the highest occupational fatality rate in the nation! 10x the national average.)
  • Excavation sites and operations involving explosives
  • Industrial equipment causing amputations (power saws, metal presses, meat processing, etc.)
  • Radioactive materials exposure
Teen workers are injured at twice the rate of adults. When seriously injured, they face permanent disabilities, disrupted education, and reduced lifetime earnings. These are consequences that last a lifetime. The bill allows Youth Apprentice Program students to operate dangerous machinery that had previously been limited to "on an occasional basis" without restriction and removes the requirement that they have "mandatory direct supervision". Industrial accidents happen in seconds. Direct supervision is essential to prevent injuries in inherently dangerous environments. Current law already allows teens to work in thousands of occupations, including retail, food service, office work, healthcare support, most construction trades, technology, and skilled trades, in safe environments. Quality apprenticeships don't require logging operations and industrial equipment that causes amputations. Please vote NO on HB 4005. Do not surrender West Virginia's authority to protect our children. Prevent Child Abuse West Virginia urges lawmakers to protect children and vote No on HB 4005. Thank you for keeping West Virginia's children safe. Sincerely, Jim McKay State Director Prevent Child Abuse WV
2026 Regular Session HB4769 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on January 23, 2026 15:44
I have serious concerns about House Bill 4769. While the bill frames itself as crisis preparedness, its inclusion of threats such as “invasion of the state,” “insurrection,” and “major cyberattack” is unusual at the state level and raises questions about the bill’s true function. These threats are already addressed through existing federal constitutional authority, emergency management frameworks, and intergovernmental coordination. HB 4769 does not establish enforceable infrastructure standards, technical safeguards, funding mechanisms, or accountability requirements. Instead, it focuses on the creation of plans and briefings, which function primarily as documentation rather than substantive protection. This is especially concerning given that the Legislature has recently advanced or passed bills that deregulate or weaken oversight in water systems, environmental infrastructure, education, health, and medical services. If the state genuinely views cyber disruption, grid failure, or large-scale emergencies as credible threats, then weakening the regulatory and oversight structures that would be essential during such crises directly contradicts that claim. Preparedness requires resilient systems, enforceable protections, and maintained regulatory capacity — not post-hoc planning documents that may later be used to assert “due diligence” while responsibility is shifted away from policymakers. Without restoring and strengthening the very safeguards that protect public health, safety, and infrastructure, this bill risks serving as a liability shield rather than a meaningful preparedness measure. For these reasons, I oppose HB 4769 in its current form.
2026 Regular Session HB4797 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Rance Berry on January 23, 2026 15:40
there are far more important things in this state to worry about than commemorating Charlie Kirk. We literally have residents in the southern part of the state whose drinking water is brown. Our education system is a mess. We need to focus on issues that truly impact our state
2026 Regular Session HB4797 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Jayli Flynn on January 23, 2026 15:15
I am submitting this public comment in opposition to HB 4797, which proposes an official state day recognizing Charlie Kirk. While I unequivocally condemn political violence and acknowledge the tragedy of Mr. Kirk’s death, creating an official state day of recognition for him is inappropriate, divisive, and inconsistent with the purpose of state-sanctioned honors. First, even “symbolic” state recognitions are not cost-free. Official days carry administrative, staffing, and operational costs and may involve paid state time or resources. At a time when West Virginia faces budget constraints affecting education, infrastructure, healthcare access, and public safety, public funds and official attention should not be diverted to commemorations that lack broad public benefit or bipartisan consensus. Second, this proposal is inherently partisan. Mr. Kirk was not a public servant, civil rights leader, or unifying historical figure. He was a contemporary political activist and commentator, best known as the founder of Turning Point USA, and as a prominent partisan figure aligned with a specific political movement. Official state recognition of a modern political operative creates the appearance that the State of West Virginia is endorsing a particular ideology or faction. State honors should unite residents across differences, not elevate figures whose careers were defined by ideological confrontation. Third, Mr. Kirk’s public record is deeply controversial and polarizing. He repeatedly made inflammatory statements about racial, religious, and LGBTQ+ communities and promoted rhetoric that many West Virginians find offensive and exclusionary. He was also publicly involved in efforts surrounding the January 6, 2021 events, including organizing transportation for protestors to Washington, D.C. While condemning violence is essential, that does not require elevating a figure whose conduct and rhetoric contributed to national division and democratic instability. State-recognized days should reflect shared civic values and historical contributions that strengthen public trust. Honoring a divisive contemporary political activist undermines that goal and sets a troubling precedent for future partisan canonization through government action. For these reasons, I respectfully urge legislators to reject HB 4797. West Virginia can and should oppose political violence without using public authority or resources to commemorate a polarizing figure. Official recognitions must remain nonpartisan, fiscally responsible, and inclusive of the full public we are meant to serve.
2026 Regular Session HB4797 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Ann on January 23, 2026 15:04
This is an inappropriate proposal for a bill, not only was he not a resident of the state, contributor to the state, or even an advocate to the state. He was extremely controversial. Though his death was clearly tragic, it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with our history, heritage, or culture. I am highly offended by this bill and do not support it. I do hope you take much consideration when evaluating this bill.
2026 Regular Session HB4797 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Andrea on January 23, 2026 15:03

As a Christian, I believe deeply in the dignity of every person and the importance of truth, humility, and good stewardship in public life. I also believe that government must be careful not to confuse its role with that of the Church, nor elevate any one individual or ideology in a way that compromises its responsibility to serve all people.

While I affirm the importance of the First Amendment and the value of free speech, I am concerned that HB 4797 ties a core constitutional principle to a single contemporary political activist. Doing so risks turning what should be a shared civic value into a partisan symbol. Scripture repeatedly warns against elevating individuals, aligning faith too closely with political power, or using authority to advance one faction over others.

Christian faith calls us to humility, peacemaking, and love of neighbor — including those with whom we disagree. A state holiday named for a modern political figure associated with division does not reflect those values, nor does it foster unity among the diverse people of West Virginia.

I am also concerned about the bill’s implications for public education. Our schools should teach civic principles in a way that is fair, balanced, and inclusive, not tied to the legacy of any one political movement or personality.

If the Legislature wishes to honor the First Amendment, it should do so in a way that reflects shared values, historical depth, and respect for all citizens — not by elevating one individual or ideology through state power. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 4797 and urge lawmakers to reconsider.

2026 Regular Session HB4797 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Melissa Tharp on January 23, 2026 14:07
I do not think that the legislature needs to take up a bill and waste the taxpayers money and time on this subject.  This person's death was a tragedy, but no more so than anyone else who has been murdered.  I don't see this legislature taking up a bill to have a holiday for the approximately 3,000 people that died on 9/11.  I don't see a holiday for the miner that recently died while saving his crew.  Please spend WV taxpayer money on the citizens of WV and the needs of WV.  People in this State have no clean water to drink.  I think that is a more pressig issue than naming a holiday after a quasi-politician.
2026 Regular Session HB4175 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Maria Brown on January 23, 2026 12:33
    I am a co-owner of an auto repair center in  West Virginia.  I would like to request the opportunity to speak to any of the supporting delegates about the current House Bills 4175 and 4639.   We are concerned about both bills which propose to eliminate or change the WV State Inspection program.  We would like to know the reasons for eliminating or changing this program.  We would also like to know what research was done to support the elimination of the program.  Please give me the opportunity to discuss with you the proposed changes and why we oppose changing the program.  I have many sound reasons to support the program; first and foremost the regulation of safe vehicles on the highways of West Virginia.   As an automotive repair station that boarders Maryland, I have compiled data showing numerous unsafe vehicles due to no regulations. We have our fair share of unsafe vehicles in West Virginia, but the inspection program allows the opportunity to inform car owners of  needed repairs before they become more costly.  Inspection stations monitor registrations and insurance throughout the year that keeps people in compliance.  Uninsured vehicles add an extra burden on West Virginia residents by causing increased auto insurance premiums.   I have many more examples which I will discuss if given the opportunity to speak with the delegates and senators supporting these bills.  It would be irresponsible as an elected official to proceed without providing sound data to support your stance and allowing the general public and your constituents the opportunity to discuss the effects of the bill.  You may contact me at the phone number and email provided in the contact information.
Thank you for your attention to this request and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
2026 Regular Session HB4737 (Government Organization)
Comment by: Edsel Smith on January 22, 2026 19:05
As a member of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and Secretary of the NFPA Architect, Engineers, and Building Officials committee I have numerous opinions.  I also am a member of Building Fire Safety Systems Section of NFPA as well as the Health Care Section, and Fire Service Section. NFPA has been discussing single exiting for apartments but no consensus standards have been developed at this time.  There are many references from the International Building Code but I only observe the reference to comply with NFPA 13 for sprinkler protection.  In many occassions the WV State Fire Code takes precedence over the WV Building Code. I fear the consequences of a single exit in a 6 story building that should require a fire alarm system in compliance with NFPA 72 and a Stair Presurization System in compliance with NFPA 92B.  I fear the consequences if someone with evil intent sets a fire in the stairwell that would overwhelm the sprinkler protection and provide no escape for those on the floors above.  There is reference the Internation Building Code for rescue and escape in section 12.  The WV Fire Code also references rescue and escape windows but they must have fire department access and no more than 20 feet from the ground level.  Most fire departments would not be able to render aid  to anyone above the 2nd. floor level and multiple rescues would most generally be fruitless. I have 45 years experience in the fire service and I have performed a rescue on the second floor level and this is a difficult task.  I have 30 years experience in fire protection and safety. For a fire department to be burdened with multiple rescues would be a disservice by the adoption of this bill.  Furthermore a fire department without a multi-million dollar Ladder apparatus would not even have a chance for rescue for those from 3rd to 6th floor. If a single story exit stair is compromised by fire or collapse my concern is there are going to be multiple fire deaths.  There are many large cities with paid career firefighters that do not permit Single Exit Stairs.  I believe we need to leave this to professionals in the field of fire safety and protection, and health, safety and welfare to develop the code standards before the adoption of this bill and protect multiple people from fire death.