NAME: Harry C. "Bo" Bruner, Jr.

COUNTY: Kanawha

PARTY: Non-partisan

DIVISION: Division 1

BIOGRAPHY: University of Charleston (B.A. Polt.Sc.); West Virginia University: Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Juris Doctorate (J.D.). Member WV, KY and FL Bars. He has four successful, adult married children and three grandchildren. He admits that raising four kids taught him the value of a dollar and being impartial and unbiased in all situations.

LEGAL/JUDICIAL EXPERIENCES: 43 years practicing law representing individuals, businesses and government agencies in complex legal matters, negotiations, arbitration, mediation; argued cases in state and federal courts. Performed WV title searches back to land grants from English kings; litigated cases involving surface and mineral rights. Practice has included state purchasing law, tax, employment administrative, and FOIA law, grant law, eminent domain and injunction law. Prepared wills, trusts and contracts involving complex commercial transactions; developed “preventive law” programs for clients to minimize litigation; drafted better accountability and transparency standards a large government agency to insure the proper use and accounting of public funds by grantees and vendors doing business West Virginia.

1. How would you make the judicial budgeting process more transparent?

No government or business client who I have represented in 43 years of practicing law has ever operated with no internal budget controls, oversight, accountability and transparency. That must change. With public money there must be sunshine on every expenditure using a "zero based" budgeting process. A forensic audit is needed to document how much public money was wasted by this admitted "indefensible spending".

2. Do you believe the current system of voluntary recusal is effective in avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest or do we need a change in the system to ensure public confidence in the process? What changes would you propose?

Any recusal problem is easily solved by using common sense with justices doing "peer review". If two justices agree the case would look or smell bad for a justice to be on it and diminish the public trust, then get off the case.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.