Can a West Virginia county commission obtain financial records from volunteer fire departments, and are those departments subject to FOIA?

Plain-English summary

The Logan County Prosecuting Attorney asked how the county commission could obtain financial records from volunteer fire departments after a September 2025 AG opinion held that county commissions could not audit VFDs or force them into a financial review. The new opinion addresses three related routes: audits by state offices, voluntary disclosure to the commission, and requests under West Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.

First, the AG concluded that both the Legislative Auditor and the State Auditor may audit VFDs. The 2025 amendment to W. Va. Code § 8-15-7a moved that section's recurring VFD audit program from the State Auditor to the Legislative Auditor. It did not repeal the State Auditor's separate authority under § 6-9-11(a)(1) to conduct annual or special audits of local government offices. The opinion treats VFDs as local government offices because they are extensively regulated, provide public services, often receive public funds, and have been described by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals as quasi-governmental bodies.

Second, a county commission may ask a VFD to provide financial information voluntarily. The commission's constitutional and statutory responsibility for county fiscal affairs carries an implied ability to ask how county funds are spent. That request has limits. The opinion says the commission may not condition levy distributions, threaten adverse action, or describe voluntary disclosure as mandatory unless a statute provides that authority.

Third, the AG concluded that government-formed VFDs are public bodies under FOIA and that citizen-formed VFDs ordinarily are as well. A VFD established by a municipality or county fits the statute because it was created by local authority. Most citizen-formed VFDs also fit because specific state statutes authorize their creation, state and local law regulate them, municipalities retain supervisory powers, they provide a public service, they face regular financial audits, and they receive significant public funding. The opinion allows that exceptional citizen-formed VFDs may fall outside the definition, but treats those cases as rare.

What this means for you

County commissioners

The opinion permits a commission to request VFD financial records on a voluntary basis as part of its oversight of county fiscal affairs. It does not permit the commission to turn that request into an audit demand, make levy distributions conditional on compliance, threaten adverse action, or state that disclosure is mandatory without separate statutory authority.

Volunteer fire department officers

The opinion distinguishes a voluntary request from a compulsory county audit. It also concludes that VFD records ordinarily fall within FOIA because government-formed VFDs, and most citizen-formed VFDs, qualify as public bodies under W. Va. Code § 29B-1-2(4). The usual statutory exemptions remain available where they apply.

Legislative Auditor and State Auditor staff

The opinion reads the two audit statutes as complementary. Section 8-15-7a gives the Legislative Auditor responsibility for the statutory VFD audit program. Section 6-9-11(a)(1) independently authorizes the State Auditor to conduct annual or special audits of local government offices, including VFDs.

Public-records requesters

Under the opinion, a government-formed VFD is a public body, and a citizen-formed VFD ordinarily is one too. Unless a FOIA exemption applies, W. Va. Code § 29B-1-3 gives a requester the right to inspect or copy its public records.

Common questions

Q: Can a county commission require a volunteer fire department to hand over financial records?
A: Not under the authority discussed in this opinion. The commission may ask for voluntary disclosure, but it may not represent the request as mandatory, condition levy distributions, or threaten adverse action without statutory authority.

Q: Did the 2025 amendment to § 8-15-7a eliminate the State Auditor's authority over VFDs?
A: No. The amendment assigned the recurring VFD audit program to the Legislative Auditor, while the State Auditor retained separate authority under § 6-9-11(a)(1) to audit local government offices.

Q: Are volunteer fire departments subject to West Virginia FOIA?
A: Government-formed VFDs are. The AG also concluded that citizen-formed VFDs ordinarily qualify as public bodies because state law enables and regulates them, municipalities retain authority over them, they provide public services, and they receive public funding. The opinion recognizes that rare exceptions may exist.

Q: Does FOIA require every VFD record to be disclosed?
A: No. The opinion says VFDs that qualify as public bodies must respond to requests for public records, but the statutory exemptions still apply.

Q: Why may a commission request records if it cannot conduct an audit?
A: The opinion treats a voluntary inquiry as reasonably implied by a commission's express authority over county fiscal affairs. An audit or coercive demand is different because it asserts compulsory power that must come from statute.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion builds on the AG's September 4, 2025 Mineral County letter. That earlier opinion concluded that a county commission could not audit VFDs, require a financial review, or withhold levy distributions when a department refused. It identified referrals to the Legislative Auditor and State Auditor as statutory accountability routes. The Logan County request asked how those routes interact and what other lawful access to records remains.

For audits, W. Va. Code § 8-15-7a assigns the Legislative Auditor the recurring review of VFD finances. W. Va. Code § 6-9-11(a)(1) separately authorizes the State Auditor to conduct annual or special audits of local government offices. The AG applied the presumption against implied repeal from Russell v. Town of Granville and State ex rel. City of Wheeling v. Renick. Because the provisions can operate together, the opinion found no basis to treat the Legislative Auditor's power as exclusive.

For county requests, the opinion starts with the rule from State ex rel. State Line Sparkler of WV, Ltd. v. Teach: county commissions possess express powers and those reasonably and necessarily implied in carrying them out. The West Virginia Constitution and W. Va. Code §§ 7-1-3 and 7-1-5 place county fiscal affairs under commission supervision. Because commissions fund VFDs under § 7-1-3d, the AG concluded that asking how county money was spent is an implied oversight tool. The opinion stops short of compulsion.

For FOIA, W. Va. Code § 29B-1-2(4) includes bodies created by state or local authority and bodies primarily funded by state or local government. The opinion uses Queen v. West Virginia University Hospitals and 4-H Road Community Association v. West Virginia University Foundation to distinguish entities created through specific statutory authority from private organizations formed only under general corporate law. It concludes that government-created VFDs clearly qualify and that the statutory creation, regulation, public functions, audits, and funding of citizen-created VFDs ordinarily bring them within the same definition.

Citations and references

Statutes and constitutional provisions:

• W. Va. Code § 5-3-2
• W. Va. Code § 6-9-11(a)(1)
• W. Va. Code §§ 7-1-3, 7-1-3d, 7-1-5, and 7-7-7(c)
• W. Va. Code §§ 8-15-1, 8-15-3, 8-15-4, 8-15-7, and 8-15-7a
• W. Va. Code §§ 29B-1-2(4) and 29B-1-3
• W. Va. Const. art. IX, § 11

Cases:

• Shepherdstown Volunteer Fire Dep't v. State ex rel. State of W. Va. Hum. Rts. Comm'n, 172 W. Va. 627, 309 S.E.2d 342 (1983)
• Russell v. Town of Granville, 237 W. Va. 9, 784 S.E.2d 336 (2016)
• State ex rel. City of Wheeling v. Renick, 145 W. Va. 640, 116 S.E.2d 763 (1960)
• State ex rel. State Line Sparkler of WV, Ltd. v. Teach, 187 W. Va. 271, 418 S.E.2d 585 (1992)
• Queen v. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc., 179 W. Va. 95, 365 S.E.2d 375 (1987)
• 4-H Road Community Association v. West Virginia University Foundation, Inc., 182 W. Va. 434, 388 S.E.2d 308 (1989)
• Porter v. Logan County Fire Department Station 2, Inc., No. 15-0520, 2016 WL 1735243, at *2-3 (W. Va. Apr. 29, 2016)

Source

• Landing page: https://ago.wv.gov/attorney-general-opinions
• Original PDF: https://ago.wv.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/2026.06.01%20--%20%20Logan%20County%20Opinion%20Letter.pdf

Original opinion text

State of West Virginia
Office of the Attorney General

John B. McCuskey Phone: (304) 558-2021
Attorney General Fax: (304) 558-0140

                                         June 1, 2026

The Honorable David A. Wandling
Logan County Prosecuting Attorney
1 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Logan, West Virginia 25601

Dear Prosecutor Wandling:

   You have asked for an Opinion of the Attorney General about how the Logan County

Commission may obtain financial records from volunteer fire departments. This Opinion is issued
under West Virginia Code § 5-3-2, which provides that the Attorney General “may consult with
and advise the several prosecuting attorneys in matters relating to the official duties of their office.”
When this Opinion relies on facts, it depends solely on the factual assertions in your
correspondence and discussions with the Attorney General’s Office.

    You explain that your office has received and reviewed the Attorney General’s September

4, 2025 opinion letter to the Mineral County Prosecuting Attorney concerning the Mineral County
Commission’s authority to audit VFDs (“Mineral County Letter”). See W. Va. Att’y Gen., Opinion
Letter to the Honorable Charlie B. Johnson III (Sept. 4, 2025), 2025 WL 2655054. In that letter,
we concluded that the Mineral County Commission could not audit VFDs, require VFDs to submit
to a financial review, or withhold levy disbursements from VFDs for failure to submit to an audit.
Id. at *1. We also concluded that the Mineral County Commission could request that the
Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor perform an audit of any VFD about which the County
Commission had concerns. Id.

    Still, the Logan County Commission wants to inspect VFDs’ financial information to

protect the county’s public fisc. So, you explain that your office needs clarification on the
following three questions related to the Mineral County Letter:

    (1)     Did the Legislature’s July 2025 amendment to West Virginia Code
            § 8-15-7a—granting the Legislative Auditor audit power over
            VFDs—divest the State Auditor of that same authority?

The Honorable David A. Wandling
Page 2

   (2)     May the County Commission ask VFDs to voluntarily turn over
           financial information?

   (3)     Are VFDs subject to West Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act?

    We conclude first that the Legislative Auditor and State Auditor both have audit power over

VFDs. The 2025 amendment to West Virginia Code § 8-15-7a did not divest the State Auditor of
its independent authority to audit VFDs. We also conclude that the Logan County Commission
may ask VFDs to turn over financial information on a voluntary basis. Finally, we conclude that
government-formed VFDs are subject to FOIA, and in most cases, citizen-formed VFDs are, too.

                                      DISCUSSION

   I.      Both the State Auditor and the Legislative Auditor may audit VFDs.

     West Virginia Code § 8-15-7a subjects VFDs to regular audits and financial examinations.

As enacted in 2019, Section 8-15-7a put the State Auditor in charge of those audits. W. VA. CODE
§ 8-15-7a (eff. June 4, 2019) (“The Auditor shall have the authority and the duty to make a regular
review of the finances of each volunteer fire company constituted under the provisions of this
article.”). In 2025, the Legislature amended Section 8-15-7a to place that audit power with the
Legislative Auditor. See S.B. 500, 2025 Leg., Reg. Sess. (W. Va. 2025); W. VA. CODE § 8-15-7a;
see also Mineral County Letter, 2025 WL 2655054, at *3.

    The 2025 amendment, however, does not eliminate the State Auditor’s separate authority

to conduct audits of VFDs. The State Auditor is empowered to “[m]ak[e] annual or special
financial and compliance examinations or audits of local government offices.” W. VA. CODE
§ 6-9-11(a)(1). That authority is broad and is not limited to any particular program or funding
stream.

    As we explained in the Mineral County Letter, VFDs appear to fall within the category of

“local government offices” included in Section 6-9-11. The statute defines “local government
office” to include “any other authority, board, commission, district, office, public authority, public
corporation or other instrumentality of a county … or municipality.” W. VA. CODE § 6-9-11(a).
VFDs have repeatedly been treated as quasi-governmental entities: they are extensively regulated
by statute, provide services to the general public, and often receive public funds. See
Shepherdstown Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. State ex rel. State of W. Va. Hum. Rts. Comm’n, 172 W. Va.
627, 635-36, 309 S.E.2d 342, 351 (1983) (describing volunteer fire departments as “quasi-
governmental bodies”). The Legislature has likewise recognized VFDs as governmental
instrumentalities in other contexts. See, e.g., W. VA. CODE § 29-12A-3(c) (including “volunteer
fire departments … recognized by an appropriate public body and authorized to perform a
government function” within the definition of “political subdivision”). For these reasons, VFDs
are subject to the State Auditor’s audit authority under Section 6-9-11(a)(1).

   Nor does the 2025 amendment to Section 8-15-7a impliedly repeal or divest that

independent authority. West Virginia courts disfavor implied repeals and harmonize statutes where
reasonably possible. Russell v. Town of Granville, 237 W. Va. 9, 12, 784 S.E.2d 336, 339 (2016);

The Honorable David A. Wandling
Page 3

syl. pts. 1 & 2, State ex rel. City of Wheeling v. Renick, 145 W. Va. 640, 116 S.E.2d 763 (1960).
Here, the provisions can be read together without conflict: Section 8-15-7a establishes a specific,
recurring audit regime for VFDs administered by the Legislative Auditor, while Section
6-9-11(a)(1) separately authorizes the State Auditor to conduct annual or special audits of local
government offices, including VFDs, when circumstances warrant. And because no conflict exists,
the specific-over-general canon does not apply. Syl. pt. 10, Barber v. Camden Clark Mem’l Hosp.
Corp., 240 W. Va. 663, 815 S.E.2d 474 (2018) (“The general rule of statutory construction requires
that a specific statute be given precedence over a general statute relating to the same subject matter
where the two cannot be reconciled.” (cleaned up)). But see State ex rel. State v. Young, No.
25-371, 2026 WL 938576, at *6 (W. Va. Apr. 7, 2026) (applying specific-over-general canon
despite finding “the statutes are not in conflict”).

    If the Legislature intended to make the Legislative Auditor’s authority exclusive, it could

have said so expressly (for example, by using “exclusive” language, adding a “notwithstanding”
clause, or amending Section 6-9-11). The 2025 amendment did none of those things. And “we
are obliged not to add to statutes something the Legislature purposely omitted.” Perito v. Cty. of
Brooke, 215 W. Va. 178, 184, 597 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2004) (cleaned up).

    Accordingly, we conclude that the Legislative Auditor has authority under Section 8-15-7a

to audit VFDs as part of the statutory audit program, and the State Auditor retains independent
authority under Section 6-9-11(a)(1) to conduct audits of VFDs as local government offices.

   II.     The County Commission Can Ask the VFD to Voluntarily Provide it With
           Financial Records.

   We pointed out in the Mineral County Letter that county commissions still “might … find

… ways” other than audits by the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor “to bring to light financial
malfeasance, including public calls for financial disclosure.” Mineral County Letter, 2025 WL
2655054, at *4. A request for voluntary disclosure is one permissible “other way[].” Id.

     County commissions are “created by statute, and possessed only of such powers as are

expressly conferred by the Constitution and legislature, together with such as are reasonably and
necessarily implied in the full and proper exercise of the powers so … given.” Syl. pt. 1, State ex
rel. State Line Sparkler of WV, Ltd. v. Teach, 187 W. Va. 271, 418 S.E.2d 585 (1992) (cleaned up).
Although county commissions have limited powers, when they do have a power, the commissions
are “vested with a wide discretion” in its execution. Syl. pt. 1, Cnty. Comm’n of Greenbrier Cnty.
v. Cummings, 228 W. Va. 464, 720 S.E.2d 587 (2011) (cleaned up). Thus, where a county
commission has broad express powers, it enjoys substantial implied authority as well. See, e.g.,
State ex rel. Farley v. Spaulding, 203 W. Va. 275, 283, 507 S.E.2d 376, 384 (1998) (finding implied
authority to employ security personnel at a statutorily required judicial facility).

    Article IX, Section 11 of the West Virginia Constitution provides that county commissions

“shall … have the superintendence and administration of the internal police and fiscal affairs of
their counties.” W. VA. CONST. art. IX, §11. West Virginia Code § 7-1-3 mirrors that language.
W. VA. CODE § 7-1-3. And West Virginia Code § 7-1-5 provides that county commissions must
“supervise the general management of the fiscal affairs and business of each county.” Id. § 7-1-5.

The Honorable David A. Wandling
Page 4

As part of this duty, county commissions set the total budget for all county operations and must
maintain balanced budgets. Id. § 7-7-7(c) (granting commission authority to set total budget); id.
§ 11-8-26 (prohibiting deficit spending). Altogether, these constitutional and statutory provisions
establish that county commissions have the express power—and the obligation—to oversee
counties’ financial affairs. See State Rd. Comm’n v. Kanawha Cnty. Ct., 112 W. Va. 98 (1932)
(holding that “superintendence” over fiscal affairs means “oversight,” not absolute control).

     That oversight authority carries the implied power to ask for financial records from VFDs

that receive county money on a voluntary basis. County commissions fund VFDs through levies,
W. VA. CODE § 7-1-3d(a)(1), and can “render financial aid to any one or more public fire protection
facilities in operation in the county for the general benefit of the public in the prevention of fires,”
Id. § 7-1-3d(b). So, if a VFD receives county funds, its finances and operations are part of the
fiscal affairs of the county. And though county commissions lack the power to audit VFDs, see
Mineral County Letter, 2025 WL 2655054, at *4, a simple inquiry is “reasonably and necessarily
implied” in a county commission’s express power to oversee the county’s finances, syl. pt. 4, State
ex rel. W. Va. Parkways Auth. v. Barr, 228 W. Va. 27, 716 S.E.2d 689 (2011) (cleaned up). Good
fiscal stewardship requires a watchful eye, and county commissions cannot fulfill their
constitutional charge without at least the ability to ask VFDs—and other publicly funded entities—
how public funds are spent.

   The Commission may request records, but it may not condition levy distributions, threaten

adverse action, or represent the request as mandatory absent statutory authority (consistent with
the Mineral County Letter).

   III.    VFDs, Ordinarily, Are “Public Bodies” Subject to FOIA.

  Finally, in most cases, VFDs are “public bod[ies]” subject to FOIA’s demands.

W. VA. CODE § 29B-1-2(4).

    West Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act gives the public extensive rights to inspect

public records. Unless a specifically enumerated exception authorizes non-disclosure, “[e]very
person has a right to inspect or copy any public record of a public body in this state.” W. VA. CODE
§ 29B-1-3. The term “public body” encompasses, inter alia, “any board, department, commission
council or agency” of a local government. Id. § 29B-1-2(4). It also extends to include “any other
body which is created by state or local authority or which is primarily funded by the state or local
authority.” Id. That definition is to be liberally construed. Syl. pt. 5, Queen v. W. Va. Univ. Hosps.,
Inc., 179 W. Va. 95, 365 S.E.2d 375 (1987). And we must reject any reading grounded in “stilted
formalism.” Id. at 102, 365 S.E.2d at 382.

   One category of VFDs fits neatly into the definition of “public body”: those that

governments establish. Municipalities “have plenary power and authority to provide for the
prevention and extinguishment of fires and, for this purpose, it may, among other things, …
provide for the organization, equipment, and government of volunteer fire companies.” W. VA.
CODE § 8-15-1. And under West Virginia Code § 8-15-3, municipalities “may contract to render
services in the prevention and extinguishment of fires upon property located within the state.” Too,
county commissions may “[f]orm county fire prevention units, and supply equipment therefor in

The Honorable David A. Wandling
Page 5

the county.” id. § 7-1-3d(a)(2). In other words, local governments can set up their own VFDs. In
that case, the VFD is “created by” a “local authority,” so it is a “public body” subject to FOIA. W.
VA. CODE § 29B-1-2(4).

    In some cases, though, private citizens can set up their own VFDs. Under West Virginia

Code § 8-15-4, a group of twenty or more residents of a municipality without a paid fire department
can form a VFD by filing a written statement of formation with the county clerk. W. VA. CODE
§ 8-15-4. Once recorded, the company’s members elect officers and adopt rules consistent with
state law and local ordinances. Id. Additionally, under West Virginia Code § 8-15-7, “interested
persons” may incorporate a VFD as a nonstock, nonprofit corporation under the State’s general
corporation laws.

   These citizen-formed VFDs, in most cases, will also qualify as “public bodies” because

they are “created by state … authority.” W. VA. CODE § 29B-1-2(4). Two cases dictate that
outcome: Queen v. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc., 179 W. Va. 95, 365 S.E.2d 375 (1987)
and 4-H Road Community Association v. West Virginia University Foundation, Inc., 182 W. Va.
434, 388 S.E.2d 308 (1989).

    In Queen, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that a hospital was a “public

body” because it was formed pursuant to a specific enabling statute. Queen, 179 W. Va. at 102,
365 S.E.2d at 382. “[T]he statute was the sine qua non leading to the incorporation of [the hospital]
and that body was, therefore created by state authority.” Id. In light of this, it mattered not that
the hospital was created under the “general corporate provisions of West Virginia law.” Id. And
the Court found it significant that the hospital would “remain accountable as a fiduciary to the
people of West Virginia.” Id. The hospital was required to report its audited financials to the
public and the Legislature annually. Id. And its board members were “appointed directly by the
Governor and … subject to confirmation by the State Senate.” Id.

    In 4-H, the Court found that a charitable foundation tasked with raising money for a

university was not a “public body.” 4-H, 182 W. Va. at 437-38, 388 S.E.2d at 311-12. The situation
was different than that in Queen. “[T]he Foundation was formed by private citizens pursuant to
the general corporate laws of the state” and “[n]o legislative mandate for such an entity predated
its incorporation.” Id. at 437, 388 S.E.2d at 311. The foundation was “not located on state
property; d[id] not utilize state employees; and selection of its Board of Directors, and their duties,
[was] governed by the corporation’s by-laws.” Id. No “public money, property or employees
[were] in any way used for the operation of the [f]oundation,” either. Id. at 438, 388 S.E.2d at 312.

    Ordinarily, a citizen-formed VFD looks like the hospital in Queen; so it qualifies as a

“public body” under FOIA. First, citizen-formed VFDs wouldn’t exist but for Sections 8-15-4 and
8-15-7. Those statutes are the “sine qua non” of citizen-formed VFDs. Queen, 179 W. Va. at 102,
365 S.E.2d at 382. And like the hospital in Queen, citizen-formed VFDs bear ongoing obligations
that demonstrate their public character. They must comply with state law and local ordinances, W.
VA. CODE § 8-15-4, remain subject to municipal authority, id. § 8-15-1, and provide a public
service, Shepherdstown, 172 W. Va. at 635, 309 S.E.2d at 351. In the same way that the State
retained authority to appoint hospital board members, municipalities retain power to appoint and
prescribe the duties of “commanding officers” of VFDs. W. VA. CODE § 8-15-1; Mabscott

The Honorable David A. Wandling
Page 6

Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Houck, 184 W. Va. 37, 39 n.5, 399 S.E.2d 180, 182 n.5 (1990). Too, Section
8-15-7a subjects VFDs to regular financial audits—the same kind of accountability to the public
that the Queen Court found significant. And, of course, VFDs receive significant state funding for
equipment, training, and maintenance. JOINT COMM. ON GOV’T AND FIN., W. VA. OFF. OF THE
LEGIS. AUDITOR, ANNUAL VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT AUDIT REPORT – 2024 1 (Feb. 10, 2025)
(“Every year, the State distributes millions of dollars to hundreds of West Virginia volunteer and
part volunteer fire departments (VFD) for the purpose of providing funding for firefighting
equipment, training, and maintenance.”).

    The only case analyzing whether a citizen-formed VFD is a “public body,” Porter v. Logan

County Fire Department Station 2, Inc., No. 15-0520, 2016 WL 1735243, at *2-3 (W. Va. Apr. 29,
2016), isn’t applicable and isn’t to the contrary. In Porter, the Court declined to classify a
citizen-formed VFD as a “public body,” but under a different statute: the Whistle-Blower Law, not
FOIA. Id. And the result turned on a thin record; the petitioner simply failed to establish that the
VFD received sufficient public funding to meet that statute’s 35% threshold. Id.

   For citizen-formed VFDs, exceptional cases may exist, but those appear rare. Thus,

VFDs—no matter how they are formed—almost always will be considered “public bodies” subject
to FOIA. W. VA. CODE § 29B-1-2(4). Unless an exemption applies, they must answer FOIA
requests for public records promptly upon receipt.

                                                 Sincerely,




                                                 John B. McCuskey
                                                 West Virginia Attorney General

                                                 Holly J. Wilson
                                                 Principal Deputy Solicitor General

                                                 S. Hallie Hovey-Murray
                                                 Assistant Solicitor General