A dog that looks similar to Gov. Jim Justice’s English bulldog Babydog appeared in one of the west mural in the West Virginia Capitol. (Perry Bennett | West Virginia Legislative Photography)
Legal counsel for Randall Reid-Smith filed a motion Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Reid-Smith and other state officials did not follow proper procedures in the lead up to the installation of several murals in the state Capitol.
The motion to dismiss was filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court by Charleston attorney Michael Hissam, who is representing Reid-Smith, the cabinet secretary for the state’s Department of Arts, Culture and History. In the motion, counsel says the initial filing against Reid-Smith and others is “nothing more than an attention-seeking lawsuit.”
The lawsuit was filed in September on behalf of citizen Gregory Morris and McDowell County artist Tom Acosta, who previously entered a bid to create the murals. It alleges that the lead up to the decision to install the murals circumvented state purchasing requirements and violated open meetings laws. The plaintiffs also allege that the inclusion of an English bulldog in one of the murals — one with an uncanny likeness to Gov. Jim Justice’s pet and political prop, Babydog — was evidence of Reid-Smith, who oversaw the drafting and installation of the murals, using his position for political and personal gain.
In the suit, the filers ask for the purchasing contract for the murals to be voided, the payments for them to stop, the murals be removed and any future work on the project halted until a fair and competitive bidding process is held. They also want Reid-Smith — who is named in the suit in both his cabinet secretary position and as chair of the Capitol Building Commission — to pay attorneys fees for the legal proceedings on top of paying back the state the more than $400,000 already put into the mural project.
In the newly filed motion on behalf of Reid-Smith, counsel argues that these demands for relief and the allegations made in the lawsuit are baseless and without any merit.
“[The lawsuit] does not allege any facts even suggesting [Acosta and Morris] were harmed by the allegedly unlawful action other than mere speculation that [Acosta] should have had the opportunity to be selected,” the motion reads. “It does not allege any facts suggesting a personal stake or particularized interest in the case whatsoever.”
The filers, counsel wrote in the motion, failed to identify any “actual or particularized injury caused by the legal violations alleged in this case.” The motion also disagrees with the attempt to include the judicial process in what is “clearly” a problem of politics and personal taste.
“It is patently clear from the face of the complaint and the tenor of Plaintiffs’ allegations that attack the artistic appearance of the existing murals, this case is not about the law, but about Plaintiffs’ personal disagreements with the murals themselves,” the motion reads.
According to arguments in the initial lawsuit, Reid-Smith made a “unilateral decision” without the OK from the Capitol Building Commission — which reviews and rules on proposed alterations within the state Capitol complex — to move forward with the mural project nearly 10 years after it was initially approved and, ultimately, scrapped.
Initial approval for the project came from the commission in 2010. There were no funds available at the time, however, to move forward with it.
Reid-Smith began work in 2021 to revisit the mural project, but the project was never brought to the Capitol Building Commission for another vote. The contract for performing the installation was given to Connecticut-based firm John Canning & Co., which was the original winner of a 2010 bid, without consideration or approval by current members of the commission.
But last month, the Capitol Building Commission met and voted to ratify the mural project, which Thursday’s motion argues makes the complaints lodged against the Commission and Reid-Smith in the initial suit “moot.”
“As a result [of that vote], Plaintiffs’ requests for relief have now been mooted by this official action, for which this Court can take judicial notice,” counsel wrote.
Four of the murals that are part of the project have already been installed and unveiled in the rotunda. The next phase of the project — which is scheduled to be finished and unveiled in coming weeks — will feature four more allegorical murals, also created and installed by John Canning & Co.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.