|
March 28~ 1972
<br />
<br /> (b) Reply and correction for the public record of certain remarks directed at my
<br /> opposition to the removal ordinance, said remarks having been made by a
<br /> Councilman and the City Attorney after t had left ~he podium and Council had
<br /> 'gone back'in session', precluding such rightful reply and correction.
<br /> It is further requested, in order toeaq~_dite and implement (b) above, that the minute
<br />book~-onta~il~g~ the minutes of the June 23, 1959 council meeting be available to the City Clerk
<br />for reference when my place on the agenda of the March 28 meeting is reached."
<br />
<br /> Mr. Walker spoke and presented the following: (documents)
<br /> "The attached letter dated 6 August, 1971 and addressed to the City Assessor, was ancopy
<br />attempt to correct an administrative omission of that office having to do with the third
<br />of the real estate assessment appeal form.
<br />
<br /> Said letter has not been acknowledged, and to my knowledge no action has been taken re-
<br />garding its subject matter. The question ~f the final destination of the said third copy,
<br />suggested to he within the pmrview of the court, also re~ainm~unanswered although it is
<br />possible that the court may have taken the required administrative action and applied it to
<br />the actions of the new Board of Equalization to be appointed fo~ the 1972-73 assessment.
<br />
<br /> ~n ~iew of the language of Section 2.12 (b)(1) o~the new City Charter, and the general
<br />agreement of-the members of Ccun~il at the meeting of ~ March, 1972 that administrative, if
<br />not assessment duties of the Assessor's office fell within the Council's responsibility, and
<br />by copy of this cover letter, the attached letter is r~-addressed to the City Council for its
<br />consideratio~ and possible action."
<br />
<br />Attached letter
<br />
<br /> "Thi~ l~t~mr refers to our conversation of Monday, 26 July, 1971 conaerning the public
<br />status of the completed appeal forms for review of t~e' 1971-~2 real estate assessments by the
<br />Board of Equalization, and is intended to pursue that most important issue to a conclusion
<br />satisfactory to all those who pay real estate taxes in Portsmouth.
<br />
<br /> For the record, during above said conversation yo~ stated that you did have t-~ (2) copies
<br />of said appeal forms filed and that the annual assessment law was silent as to the dispositio~
<br />of' those two copies. The members of the Board of ~qualization who were interviewed ~y the ~
<br />writer knew only that one (1) copy, complete with the Board's action thereon, had been returned
<br />to the taxpayer concerned as the law requmres. The remaining two (2) copmes filed with the
<br />Board by the taxpayers, they advised, had been returned to the 'City'
<br />
<br /> I appreciate the initial action of your office wherein, after due consideration by the
<br />City Attorney, all the cases wherein the Board had lowered the assessment, including those
<br />parcels whose owners were not taken to court, were made available to two defendants for their
<br />consideration and use in their Refense. Such appeals released ~o them numbered fifty-three (~
<br />forty-one (41) parcels which had been the subject of court action and twelve (12) which had nc
<br />You advised that a total of one=hundred-twenty-one (121) appeals for review had been filed
<br />with the said Board. Therefore, sixty-eight (68) appeals are not a matter of public record
<br />to-date. Whether or not the other twenty-nine (2~) defendants have been given the same chanc~
<br />to view said appeals is not known.
<br />
<br /> It is my opinion that all actions of such an important board, upon such an important sub-
<br />ject, should be available for scrutiny, not justiin this instance where the City has filed a
<br />'blanket' suit to retrieve tax money lost to the budget as a result of the Board's reduction
<br />of assessments, but as a simple matter of right under the First Amendment, the right to know
<br />amendment of our Constitution.
<br />
<br /> Submitting that the law is silent regarding the ultimate and final depository of the
<br />third copy of the subject appeal forms, and questioning the need of your office for two (2)
<br />copies of said forms, it is believed that s statute requiring the submittal of forms as a
<br />part of th~ due process of ~ppeal must have had good reason for requiring three (3) instead
<br />of (2) rFP copies. It is further believed that above said third copy was intended for de-
<br />posit in the public records of the Court responsible for the appointment of such Appeal Board~
<br />as well as for the welfare and safety of the taxpayers under the law.
<br />
<br /> This inquiry is addressed to your office instead ofn~o the City Council in view of your
<br />alleged 'independence' from that political body, and because the annual assessment law provid~
<br />the taxpayers ~ith no other recourse for the correction of the idministrative silence pre-
<br />sented by the above said redundant third copy.
<br />
<br /> By copy of this letter the Judge of the Hustings Court is advised of this situation in
<br />event that it falls within his purview to determi~ the~intent of the legislature as to the
<br />filing place and public status of said third copy, a~d, if it pleases the Court, to take the
<br />necessary administrative action to correct the situation."
<br />
<br /> 72-111 Motion of Mr. Turner and seconded by Mr. Raymond Smith, the~ report f~em the
<br />Auditor of Public Accounts of the audit of Commonwealth RBvenues for the fiscal year ended
<br />June 30, 1971, to be received as information, w~s adopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner, Barnes
<br />,Nays: None
<br />
<br />
<br />
|