文字稿 🔗
WEBVTT
1
00:00:00.270 --> 00:00:04.540
West Virginia State Auditor Mark Hunt is facing serious questions
2
00:00:04.669 --> 00:00:08.900
after personally signing nine tax deeds last year. Deeds issued
3
00:00:08.939 --> 00:00:12.060
to a company owned by someone with whom Hunt acknowledges
4
00:00:12.500 --> 00:00:17.339
a longstanding personal relationship. State law assigns responsibility for signing
5
00:00:17.399 --> 00:00:22.030
those deeds to the deputy commissioner of delinquent and non-entered lands.
6
00:00:22.469 --> 00:00:28.149
It also establishes a 120-day consumer protection-like deadline for the
7
00:00:28.190 --> 00:00:32.369
benefit of property owners. Hunt argues the law is ambiguous. Others,
8
00:00:32.750 --> 00:00:37.369
including Delegate Tristan Leavitt and Senator Ryan Weld, disagree. For
9
00:00:37.409 --> 00:00:40.539
a full accounting of the controversy, the competing legal arguments,
10
00:00:40.579 --> 00:00:46.039
and Hunt's explanation on TalkLine, Read the commentary online at wvmetronews.com.
11
00:00:46.280 --> 00:00:48.829
But here's what matters beyond the legal debate. Think of
12
00:00:48.869 --> 00:00:52.310
the legislature as a company's board of directors. The board
13
00:00:52.350 --> 00:00:56.320
establishes policies and boundaries. Executives carry them out. They don't
14
00:00:56.399 --> 00:01:00.259
get to rewrite the rules whenever those rules... become inconvenient.
15
00:01:00.640 --> 00:01:04.420
Government works much the same way. The legislature makes the law.
16
00:01:04.519 --> 00:01:09.739
Constitutional officers, including the state auditor, are responsible for executing it,
17
00:01:10.040 --> 00:01:12.909
not substituting their own judgment for it. Perhaps there is
18
00:01:12.939 --> 00:01:16.790
a more efficient way to handle delinquent property transactions. Fine,
19
00:01:16.890 --> 00:01:19.629
change the law. And the auditor says he's tried. But
20
00:01:19.689 --> 00:01:23.909
efficiency is not a substitute for legal authority. And until
21
00:01:23.950 --> 00:01:27.870
the legislature changes the law... It is what it is. Ultimately,
22
00:01:27.950 --> 00:01:31.010
the courts may have to determine whether Hunt acted lawfully
23
00:01:31.129 --> 00:01:34.549
or not. But legality is only part of the story.
24
00:01:35.010 --> 00:01:39.489
There's another question, one involving ethics, morality, and the judgment
25
00:01:39.530 --> 00:01:43.409
we should expect from those entrusted with public office. Just
26
00:01:43.450 --> 00:01:46.629
because a public official believes he can do something, does
27
00:01:46.650 --> 00:01:49.730
that mean he should? And would anyone approaching the auditor's
28
00:01:49.799 --> 00:01:54.530
office have received the same treatment regardless? of personal relationships.
29
00:01:54.989 --> 00:01:58.109
Here's a useful exercise. Think of someone you know who
30
00:01:58.219 --> 00:02:03.719
possesses the highest standards of personal and professional integrity. Someone who,
31
00:02:03.859 --> 00:02:07.950
when faced with the choice between expediency and principle, consistently
32
00:02:07.989 --> 00:02:11.729
chooses principle. Now ask yourself, what would that person have
33
00:02:11.789 --> 00:02:16.099
done in Hunt's situation. A talk line listener suggested former
34
00:02:16.139 --> 00:02:19.879
House Speaker and Supreme Court Justice Tim Armstead as such
35
00:02:19.919 --> 00:02:23.580
a standard. Armstead developed a reputation for avoiding even the
36
00:02:23.639 --> 00:02:29.370
appearance of impropriety. So, who's your Tim Armstead? And would
37
00:02:29.449 --> 00:02:34.009
Hunt's actions pass that person's test? That's a question worth considering,
38
00:02:34.189 --> 00:02:37.409
as calls for Hunt's resignation grow and the possibility of
39
00:02:37.469 --> 00:02:42.550
impeachment increase. enters the conversation. None of this establishes criminal wrongdoing,
40
00:02:42.669 --> 00:02:47.469
nor does a personal relationship by itself prove corruption. But
41
00:02:47.590 --> 00:02:51.689
public trust demands something more than simply avoiding prosecution or
42
00:02:51.810 --> 00:02:56.500
finding a legal justification for questionable judgment. Public officials should
43
00:02:56.560 --> 00:03:00.520
ask themselves not merely whether they can defend their actions,
44
00:03:00.780 --> 00:03:04.699
but whether a person of unquestioned integrity would have taken
45
00:03:04.719 --> 00:03:09.129
those actions in the first place. Admittedly, that's a high standard,
46
00:03:09.250 --> 00:03:13.030
very high. Public office should demand nothing less.