UPDATED: Hagerstown Denies County Claims of Treasurer Security Breaches and Misrepresentations

After receiving a response to a Public Information Act request from the City of Hagerstown, two claims in the viral letter against Treasurer Breeding have now been disproven. In addition to refuting the original claim that “all municipalities” had filed complaints against the Treasurer supposedly misrepresenting the statements or actions of the BOCC, the latest response also shows that the City of Hagerstown has not filed any complaints regarding the treasurer entering secure cashiering spaces without authorization.

Washington County residents have likely seen viral claims regarding Washington County, Maryland Treasurer Robert “Matt” Breeding in the past few days, fueled by internal county documents that appear to present official concerns over the Treasurer’s conduct. While public discussions have largely been shaped by an advisory opinion from the Washington County Ethics Commission and an incomplete copy of a letter supposedly sent by the County Commissioners to Delegate Wivell, a closer examination of municipal correspondence and the Treasurer’s formal rebuttal suggests a significant divergence between the County administration’s characterization and the actual nature of these events. Unfortunately, we’re unable to obtain comment from Washington County Government, due to a new policy relayed to us requiring requests for information go through the Public Information Act portal, resulting in significant delay.

This story was updated 3/11/2026 10:30 PM with additional information from the City of Hagerstown regarding a second accusation against the County Treasurer

This story was updated 3/11/2026 12:21 PM with additional information from the Town of Sharpsburg, and updated at 3:29 PM with additional information from City of Hagerstown

An incomplete internal county document being shared on social media, titled “RE: Office of the County Treasurer,” appears to be a letter from Washington County Commissioners to Delegate William Wivell, and contains serious allegations against Treasurer Breeding. While the first page of the letter outlines policy, procedure, and financial reasons for converting the Treasurer position to appointed instead of elected, the second and third page contain serious allegations against the Treasurer, some potentially criminal. The fourth page, which would contain the signatures of the County Commissioners, is noticeably absent from the document being shared. However, contrary to the accusations in the letter we were unable to locate on Maryland Case Search any criminal cases in Washington County against Treasurer Breeding, and many of the accusations require Washington County Government to release official records to validate. We have filed multiple Public Information Act requests with Washington County regarding the accusations, and requested these requests to be expedited due to the timing with the Maryland Primary Election and Treasurer Breeding now running for County Commissioner. Delegate Wivell was able to verify in a phone call that the letter was sent, but without the complete letter for full context, we will not be publishing it here.

We would reach out to the county PR department for comment to obtain a full copy of the letter more expediently, but in accordance with an email from County Administrator Michelle Gordon on January 28, 2026, requests for information must go through the county’s PIA portal. This policy was then re-iterated by the PR department in response to another email regarding an incident at a County Commissioner meeting. As such, until we are notified by the County that this process is no longer in effect, all of our requests will be submitted through the PIA portal instead of as a request to the PR department. The full letter is one of the records requested in our PIA request.

One section of the letter we have been able to investigate explicitly stated that “all of the Municipalities” had complained that Treasurer Breeding had “misrepresented statements or actions of the BOCC.” However, direct evidence from the municipalities themselves portrays a different scenario, one characterized by professional inquiry and initial interest rather than formal grievances. An additional claim in the letter states that the City of Hagerstown filed complaints alleging that the Treasurer entered secure cashiering spaces without authorization. To date, Radio Free Hub City has been unable to locate any complaints from municipalities regarding the Treasurer.

The county letter appears to have categorized feedback from municipalities as formal “complaints,” asserting that Treasurer Breeding had misrepresented the actions or statements of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). However, official records from the municipalities of Boonsboro and Smithsburg indicate that their initial interactions with the Treasurer were framed as professional inquiries or collaborative proposals. For instance, the Town Clerk of Boonsboro initially viewed the Treasurer’s plan as a “great opportunity,” and the Mayor of Smithsburg reached out to clarify the County’s official stance on the matter.

Despite the County’s claiming complaints from all municipalities, no municipality has responded to our PIA requests with any records of complaints being filed against the Treasurer.

In July 2023, Treasurer Breeding initiated contact with several municipalities to discuss an “Idea to kick around”—a proposal aimed at consolidating local and county tax billings. The objective was to achieve cost savings on postage, manpower, and to mitigate issues related to “false” tax sale reporting. The initial response from Boonsboro’s Town Clerk, Bryan Wachtel, was notably positive, describing the proposal as a “great opportunity and program to take part in” that would resolve several local concerns. Although the Boonsboro Council later rescinded their support in October 2023, their meeting minutes indicate the decision was based on the fact that the “County Commissioners have not approved this to be done yet,” rather than any formal complaint against the Treasurer’s conduct. Furthermore, when a Public Information Act request for “complaints” regarding the Treasurer was filed in March 2026, the Boonsboro Town Manager responded that they had no records directly addressing the request for “Complaints to Washington County Government.”

Similarly, correspondence from Smithsburg Mayor Donald Souders in November 2024 revealed an effort to seek clarification, not to lodge a formal complaint. Souders contacted County Administrator Michelle Gordon to inquire whether the county supported Mr. Breeding’s initiative or was even considering the matter. While Mayor Souders acknowledged that Smithsburg’s council had previously voted against supporting the initiative, his email was aimed at understanding the County’s “formal position” to prevent confusion among other mayors. Michelle Gordon’s response to Mayor Souders noted that no “formal proposal to the Board” had been presented and stating her personal lack of support at that time. However, review of the email shows no formal complaint from the Town of Smithsburg or its Mayor.

Additionally, Public Information Act requests with Hagerstown, Clear Spring, Hancock, Keedysville, Sharpsburg, and Williamsport produced no records of complaints against the Treasurer. The Town of Funkstown has not yet responded to our PIA requests. The City of Hagerstown response is especially interesting, as it disproves a second claim in the letter regarding complaints of Breeding entering secure cashiering spaces without authorization. While it is possible that individual complaints may have been filed verbally by individual elected officials, no records have been located indicating formal complaint on behalf of any municipality at this time.

In addition to the tax initiative discussions, the Washington County Ethics Commission issued an Advisory Opinion on January 6, 2026, concerning Treasurer Breeding’s intention to hire John T. McElroy as a part-time cashier. At the time of the opinion, McElroy was also a candidate for County Treasurer. The Commission’s principal concern was the “use of prestige of office,” citing an email from Breeding that described McElroy as a “very solid candidate” likely to win the election and that Breeding intended to use him to ensure “continuity of both management and leadership.” The Commission concluded that hiring a formal candidate for the very position he intended to pursue violated the Ethics Ordinance’s prohibition against using public office for the financial benefit of another. The opinion argued that even if Breeding’s intentions were “purely altruistic,” the “appearance of impropriety” should have been sufficient reason to halt the plan.

On February 5, 2026, Treasurer Breeding submitted a formal rebuttal, contending that the Advisory Opinion overlooked “material facts” and “exculpatory information.” Breeding’s rebuttal challenged the narrative of political favoritism by presenting a timeline of operational necessity. He revealed that Mr. McElroy had applied for the cashier position on October 15, 2025, which was over a month before he filed his candidacy for Treasurer. According to the rebuttal, the hiring decision was based on McElroy’s specific qualifications, including his recent employment with the IRS, which concluded in September 2025 due to federal workforce reductions. Breeding argued that it would have been “wrong and contrary to principles of fair and impartial employment” to withdraw support for McElroy’s hire once he entered the race, solely because of his candidacy.

The rebuttal further clarified that the Treasurer’s Office has a “long-standing and routine practice” of hiring part-time cashiers to fill vacancies left by departing staff or interns. McElroy was intended to replace one of two summer interns who were leaving, a move described by Breeding as being “anchored to merit” and “operational need,” rather than a political endorsement. Breeding’s most significant criticism was directed at the Commission’s process, stating that it did not interview McElroy and that the Treasurer was not given the opportunity to provide “full factual context.” He asserted that the opinion relied “heavily and almost exclusively on a single email,” disregarding the historical and operational record of the office. Breeding concluded that the Advisory Opinion did not reflect the “full factual reality” and requested a reconsideration based on a “complete, neutral, and accurate” record. We have requested additional documents related to this advisory opinion from Washington County through a PIA request, including the employment status of Mr. McElroy, as well as offered him the opportunity for comment, but no response has been received at this time.

When these documents are considered together, a significant disconnect emerges. The current public narrative depicts an incomplete picture of a Treasurer who allegedly misrepresented the Board of County Commissioners and committed ethical violations for the benefit of a political successor. However, the available records suggest that municipalities engaged in professional dialogue and have no record of the formal “complaints” claimed by the County. The Treasurer appears to have been operating as an independently elected official, proposing initiatives believed to benefit citizens, even as the County Board advocated for the conversion of his position to appointed instead of elected.

Furthermore, because the Treasurer was not interviewed as part of the advisory opinion process, the Ethics Commission’s case appears to have omitted a crucial timeline indicating the candidate applied for the cashier position well before entering the race, a fact that challenges the “prestige of office” conclusion.

Unfortunately, the current public presentation of these events, by omitting the Treasurer’s rebuttal and failing to validate the claims within the letter, offers an incomplete and potentially biased account of the situation. We are unable to confirm the validity of the remaining claims in the letter, as the County has not yet responded to our PIA request. Once we receive the requested records and have analyzed them, we will release follow-up coverage.

All of our documents regarding this matter are available in DocumentCloud below, including our MPIA responses, an unofficial copy of the ethics opinion, and the Treasurer’s rebuttal.

Article by Ken Buckler, based upon information from multiple sources as outlined in the article and in DocumentCloud.

EDITOR’S NOTE: While the Treasurer’s past has been a subject of public debate and political opposition, this investigation focuses strictly on the the accuracy of current accusations against the Treasurer while in office.

---