News broke Sunday from West Virginia Watch reporters Amelia Ferrell Knisely and Henry Culvyhouse that State Auditor Mark Hunt, a Republican, personally signed nine tax deeds between March and June 2025.
That may not sound like a big deal.
It is.
Another matter? Hunt confirmed he has long had a personal relationship with the owner of the company the signed deeds were issued to.
State law assigns responsibility for signing such deeds to the deputy commissioner of delinquent and nonentered lands. These legal instruments transfer ownership of properties sold because of unpaid property taxes.
Moreover, state code establishes a 120-day deadline for executing and delivering such deeds, with a judicial remedy available when that deadline is not met. The deadline is like a consumer protection measure of sorts meant to tip the scales toward the benefit of property owners before completely losing their property.
Hunt, appearing Monday on MetroNews Talkline, argued that the law is somewhat ambiguous regarding his authority to sign the deeds. He cited broad powers concerning delinquent properties and the fact that the deputy commissioner serves under him.
Kanawha County Delegate Tristan Leavitt (R), an attorney specializing in whistleblower law and government accountability, disputes that interpretation.
Appearing on Talkline following Hunt, Leavitt argued the law is clear: The auditor is not authorized to sign the deeds.
He went further. Leavitt maintained that neither the auditor nor the deputy commissioner could simply execute the deeds beyond the statutory deadline without judicial intervention.
When questioned if he asked the deputy commissioner to sign the deeds after the 120-day deadline, and if she refused to do so because she believed such would be illegal, Hunt replied, “No and no.”
He said a roundtable discussion with staff, including counsel, was held. Hunt said that while the deputy commissioner was not present at the meeting, a representative of the land division was. Hunt said he decided to sign the leases to spare the deputy commissioner any consequence civilly from the company seeking the deeds.
“I’m the boss, I’ll take the heat,” Hunt said. “This is not a criminal matter, it’s a civil matter.”
Sen. Ryan Weld of Brooke County — he played a key role in revamping the state’s delinquent property laws during the 2022 legislative session — told Steven Allen Adams of Ogden Newspapers that Hunt’s actions circumvented measures meant to protect property owners.
“It reeks of some sort of cronyism, and that’s why people look at government and say it doesn’t work for me,” Weld said.
Trouble has found Hunt and his office recently.
Veteran newsman Brad McElhinny reported on federal scrutiny involving the Auditor’s Office. Asked on Monday directly whether he or his office was under federal investigation, Hunt could not provide a definitive answer. He did acknowledge that documents had been requested by federal authorities, although he indicated he had no direct knowledge of the nature of the inquiry.
As of publication, no indictment has been publicly announced in connection with the matter.
Hunt has also faced questions about his office’s employment of Taylor County Senator Jay Taylor.
West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey, the previous state auditor, characterized Hunt’s claims of a land division in disarray as not matching the facts. “They’re (land division employees) true professionals, and I will not sit idly by and allow the current Auditor to disparage them,” McCuskey said in a prepared statement.
So, what’s it all mean?
Regarding the legal questions, attorneys and ultimately the courts are best equipped to reconcile the competing interpretations of state code.
Perhaps looking at the problem through the lens of business simplifies the matter.
Think of the Legislature as a company’s board of directors.
A corporate board establishes policies and boundaries within which executives operate. The CEO, CFO and other executives are responsible for carrying out those policies, not rewriting them whenever they become inconvenient.
Government operates under a similar principle, although its authority comes from statutes and the Constitution rather than corporate bylaws.
The Legislature makes the law. Constitutional officers, including the governor and state auditor, are charged with carrying it out.
They are not empowered simply to substitute their judgment for the law.
Was Hunt authorized to sign the deeds?
Despite his arguments about ambiguity, the viewpoint lacks persuasion.
Hunt suggests West Virginia Code §11A-3-59 is inapplicable because it addresses an earlier process involving county-level sales rather than the system now administered by the state.
But that argument fails to adequately reconcile the Legislature’s intention – one of specificity.
County sale or state sale, the statutory language is specific. It identifies the deputy commissioner as the official responsible for executing deeds and establishes a 120-day deadline, subject to the court process provided by law.
That doesn’t change no matter what kind of sale is undertaken – county, state… whatever.
Should that change? Is there a more efficient way to handle delinquent property transactions?
Perhaps.
But efficiency is not a substitute for legal authority.
The Legislature can change the law. Hunt said he asked for changes twice with no action. Maybe not taking action was the Legislature’s answer? At any rate, an executive cannot simply change the law’s application because doing so seems more convenient or might avoid litigation.
Again, the courts are best positioned to determine whether Hunt’s actions were lawful.
But legality is only part of this story.
There is a broader question, one squarely within the role of Toby and Edith: the question of ethics, morality and the judgment expected of those entrusted with public office.
Was Hunt right or wrong to do what he did? Could anyone – not just someone with an alleged personal relationship and access – approach the auditor and see similar results?
Those questions deserve reflection.
And while comparison is often a dangerous exercise, sometimes it provides a useful measure of character.
Think of a leader you know to possess the highest standards of personal and professional integrity.
Someone who has faced the pressures of leadership. Someone who has encountered difficult decisions, tempting shortcuts and opportunities to exercise power beyond what circumstances might otherwise justify.
Someone who, when faced with the choice between expediency and principle, consistently chose principle.
Now ask yourself: What would that person have done in Hunt’s situation?
A Talkline listener suggested former House Speaker and Supreme Court Justice Tim Armstead as such a barometer.
Armstead developed a reputation for going out of his way to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Whether one agreed with his politics or not, that reputation for caution and personal integrity became part of his public identity.
So, who is your Tim Armstead?
And would Hunt’s actions pass the Armstead test? That is not a question for this commentary, but one for its readers.
Remember, the original reporting also raised questions about the relationship between Hunt and the individual who benefited from the deeds. That does not establish wrongdoing, but it makes the question of appearances all the more important.
Public officials should not merely ask whether they can justify an action.
They should ask whether the action meets the standard of conduct the public has every right to expect.
There is a difference.
As Leavitt made clear on Talkline, talk of impeachment may be moving beyond political chatter. He has already called for Hunt’s resignation, and scrutiny of the auditor continues to intensify. So have West Virginia Democrats. Other Republicans besides Leavitt have said as much, quietly and on background.
Should impeachment proceedings develop – it’s still very early on in the life of this issue — West Virginians will have an opportunity to make their views known to the representatives entrusted with that responsibility.
And when that time comes, if it ever comes, the Armstead test might be a useful framework.
Not because Tim Armstead is the only measure of integrity, but because every voter should have some standard against which public officials are judged.
The question should never be merely whether an official can legally justify what he did.
It should also be whether a person of unquestioned integrity would have done it in the first place.
That’s a higher standard, no doubt. Public office should demand nothing less.