2014-01-08 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

MR. ADAMS: Right. And to take the words as their stated in the petition, it talks about being assigned to appraise their own properties and set the assessed value of the land of their primary residences. And as we have gotten into—as we have received perhaps a more detailed understanding of processes and terminology that is used by the County Real Property Division, the idea that appraisers that do mass appraisals are setting the assessed value of their primary residences seems to me to be more of a remote action than a direct action. So then when I go back and I take a look at the things that we said we wanted to take a look at as a part of this informal hearing, which were associated with Section 2-84(a)(1), no officer or employee shall take any official action directly affecting a business or other undertaking in which that officer or employee has a substantial financial interest, we agreed that it was official action, it was directly affecting, and it was substantial financial interest that were the key elements that were issued. I think that it’s clear by the terminology in the Code, at least to me, official action, decision, recommendation, approval, disapproval, or other action, including inaction, which involves the use of discretionary authority is clearly covered by what we ask our real estate appraisers to do. It’s official action, even within the _______ chart that we saw. And then when we talk about substantial financial interest, a residence is a substantial financial interest. So it comes down, to me, to what I think the Judge was talking about—directly affecting. Does that official action that they take when they do the en masse appraisal directly affect the substantial financial interest that they have? It appears to me, as I look at this, that there are enough of the—that it’s diluted enough, that’s probably as good a term as any--that it’s not a direct action for the purposes of the Code. At least that’s my initial take. But I am clearly open to listen. MR. BALSIS: I’d like to make my comment, if I may. First of all, I agree with you. But I do think that—I’m going to go back to some of the comments of Mr. Sitko at the last meeting, where he actually stated that it would not be an issue to reassign appraisers. And I go back to what Mr. Takai had mentioned earlier, when he made a comment that at that period of time, everybody was in one area and they had to--someone had to do their own neighborhood. If we’re now in a position in terms of the County where it can be spread out so that you are not doing your own neighborhood, or a comparative neighborhood, then the County should take that next step and disperse the assignments. But in this particular case, I agree with Mr. Adams that there’s no findings of a direct violation of the Code of Ethics. Glen? MR. HISASHIMA: No. MR. BALSIS: Mr. Henricks? MR. HENRICKS: That’s my problem that I have. I tend to agree with you to a certain amount, but then I disagree with you to a certain amount. And my disagreement is the word we get back down to, is the word—we know it affects it, but does it directly affect it? That’s what our crux of the word right now. Does mass appraisal take it out of the area of directly affecting? I don’t know, because even if you dilute it, what is the criteria? How much do you dilute it to take it out of direct to make it not enough? And 17