Laserfiche WebLink
when is it enough to be considered direct, and when is it not enough to be considered <br />direct? So it’s creates a quandary right there. But to me, if it affects a person directly, <br />you can’t say well, not very much directly. It either does or it doesn’t affect it directly. <br />And you can’t say because I’ve diluted it, it no longer affects it directly. I don’t think it <br />can do that. It either does affect it or it doesn’t affect it. So I’m stuck there. I still feel it <br />does affect it. <br /> <br />MR. BALSIS: I agree with you. But you have to go back into the history in the <br />department, and what has happened is you’ve had this practice that was 40 years old <br />that has never been changed or never evolved over time. And that practice needs to <br />evolve, because now they have appraisers from all over the place. <br /> <br />MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, but are we responsible for their practice or are we responsible for <br />the Ethics Code, as it states? <br /> <br />MR. BALSIS: We’re responsible for the Ethics Code, and if their practice is contrary to <br />the—is going against the Ethics Code, then we need to state that fact, and it’s up to <br />them to do something about their practice. <br /> <br />MR. HENRICKS: That’s the position I’m at right now. I don’t think—all the concepts <br />about dilution and checks and balances I don’t think can be relevant at this point, until <br />we determine whether her property is directly affected by what she does. No matter <br />what the checks and balances are, it’s immaterial, because that’s an aftermath. Is her <br />action directly affecting the property? That’s it. Simple. <br /> <br />MR. BALSIS: The question would be, in my mind, if you’re just going to that specific <br />question, yes. <br /> <br />MR. HENRICKS: Okay, that’s my input. <br /> <br />MR. BALSIS: Is there any motion or any pleasure of the Board at this time? <br /> <br />MR. HENRICKS: Well, I’ll take one step forward, one small step forward. I will make a <br />motion to dismiss Petition No. 2013-05 for not directly—because she did not directly <br />affect her property, because her property at this time cannot be directly affected by <br />anything she does in that area. So I’ll make a motion to dismiss that particular petition <br />alone. <br /> <br />MR. BALSIS: Is there a second to this motion? <br /> <br />MR. HISASHIMA: Second. <br /> <br />MR. BALSIS: Is there any discussion on the motion to dismiss -05? All those in favor of <br />the motion, say aye. <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />