SB952 reorganizes West Virginia’s court security funding and oversight structure. The bill transfers the Court Security Fund from the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety to the Supreme Court of Appeals, placing the fund under the judiciary rather than an executive-branch agency. It also authorizes the Legislature to appropriate money from the fund for the Supreme Court’s administrative expenses in managing the fund, subject to a cap of the lesser of 3% of deposits or $30,000 per fiscal year.
The bill revises the membership and operation of the Court Security Board. The board remains responsible for deciding how court security money is spent to improve courthouse security, but its membership is updated to include six appointed members plus the Supreme Court’s administrative director as chair. The bill also preserves the board’s role in maintaining a list of qualified law-enforcement officers available to serve as bailiffs in court facilities. In addition, SB952 repeals the section requiring legislative rule-making for the board, simplifying the board’s authority and eliminating that procedural requirement.
Impact
SB952 amends West Virginia Code §§51-3-14 and 51-3-15 and repeals §51-3-17. Its practical effect is to shift administration of the Court Security Fund to the Supreme Court of Appeals, clarify how fund revenues may be spent, and allow legislative appropriations for administration and related transfers. The bill affects court operations, county sheriffs, magistrate and circuit court clerks, and the Court Security Board by changing the governance structure for court security funding and bailiff recruitment support.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate 30-0, the House 91-0, and the Senate concurred in House amendments 32-0, indicating unanimous or near-unanimous approval in both chambers. The absence of committee transcript material suggests there was little recorded public debate in the available materials.
Contention
No significant opposition is reflected in the available record. The main policy change is administrative: moving the fund to the judiciary, adjusting board membership, and removing legislative rule-making requirements. Any potential point of concern would likely center on the shift of control from an executive-branch department to the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Legislature’s continued role in appropriating fund balances, but no specific objections are documented in the votes or transcripts provided.