Madison Co. BOC submits termination letter to assessors

This is to notify you that the Board of Commissioners of Madison County (BOC) has determined that you should be removed from your positions as members of the Madison County Board of Tax Assessors (BOA).

Grounds for removal

The reasons for this determination are as follows:

1. Failure to submit tax digest by deadline.

O.C.G.A. 48-5-302 provides as follows: “Each county board of tax assessors shall complete its revision and assessment of the returns of taxpayers in its respective county by July 1 of each year, except that, in all counties providing for the collection and payment of ad valorem taxes in installments such date shall be June of each year. The tax receiver or tax commissioner shall then immediately forward one copy of the completed digest to the commissioner for examination and approval.

BOA member Garland was appointed to office April 30, 2004, and served as chair from May 12, 2005, until December 2008. BOA members Stewart and Escoe were appointed to office Aug. 22, 2005. BOA member Ragland was appointed to office in September 10, 2008, and has served as chair since January 2009.

The BOA has not completed its duties by the July 1 deadline since any of you were appointed to office. Thus, five deadlines have been missed since Ms. Garland’s appointment, and three deadlines have been missed since Mr. Stewart’s and Mr. Escoe’s appointments. Mr. Ragland was appointed after the last missed deadline in 2008, but there is no reason to believe that the 2009 deadline will be met. Contrary to public assertions made by Mr. Ragland, staff employees in the Office of the Tax Assessor report that the process is indeed behind schedule. This would almost have to be the case, since the county has been without a chief appraiser since Dec. 31, 2008, because the BOA decided to non-renew the contract of the former chief and failed to take reasonable steps toward the hiring of a replacement. The highest-ranking staff appraiser also resigned recently, and rescinded her resignation only after the chair of the BOC (not the BOA) reached out to convince her to remain with the county.

Submitting the digest in a timely manner is of paramount importance, and failing to do so, regardless of whatever excuses or reasons may be offered is legally sufficient grounds for removal (See Pope vs. Bd. of Comm’rs. 276 Ga. App. 121 2005). The BOC cannot, in good conscience, allow this situation to continue.

2. Failure to secure a chief appraiser

Every county is required to have a chief appraiser. Typically the BOA designates that person; however in Madison County, that function has been given over to the BOC. (See orders dated Dec. 23, 2004, and Jan. 11, 2005, in case No. 04-MV-837-J, Superior Court of Madison County). After entry of those orders, the BOC, at the request of the BOA, amended the county personnel policy so as to give the BOA a role in the personnel issues. For purposes hereof, that amendment gave the BOA the right and duty to recommend a candidate for chief appraiser to the BOC, only after which the BOC could take action to hire such person.

You had conflicts with the former chief appraiser, James Flynt, whose contract expired Dec. 31, 2008. Therefore, you declined to recommend him for renewal. However, despite the fact that these conflicts had been evident for many months, you had no replacement to recommend by the end of 2008, leaving the office without a chief. You have since recommended only one person for the position and that only after repeated requests and reminders to do so. That recommendation was made on Feb. 19, 2009, and was rejected by the BOC. You have since insisted that no suitable candidate has yet been found.

This stalemate led to the BOC amending its personnel policy on March 18, 2009, to take away the role of the BOA in hiring decisions. The BOC chair immediately thereafter reviewed the applications you had received and identified at least two well-qualified candidates, one of whom you never granted an interview, and the other of whom you failed to re-interview after your single recommendation was rejected.

As noted, you had much conflict with the former chief appraiser, who was selected by the BOC prior to the enactment of the now-rescinded amendment that gave the BOA a role in the hiring process. An audit performed by the Georgia Department of Revenue, dated Nov. 3, 2008, highlights this conflict with the chief appraiser, as well as your tendency to “micro-manage” the appraisal staff. There is no reason to believe that this situation would improve with a new chief appraiser selected by the BOC.

Again, the BOC could not in good conscience allow the chief appraiser vacancy to continue dragging on, and it cannot in good conscience throw another chief appraiser into a situation of untenable conflict with the BOA.

3. Turmoil among BOA members

As BOA members, you have displayed not only a lack of ability to cooperate with one another, but also an alarming proclivity for attacking one another in public forums, including letters to the local newspaper.

Members of a public body like the BOA are not required to always agree, but they are expected to conduct themselves with dignity. These very public and personal disputes undermine confidence in the BOA and in county government as a whole. More concretely, this behavior is directly related to the stalemate and gridlock that left a critical position like chief appraiser open for months on end. There being no apparent end in sight to such open conflict, and not wishing to “take sides” in your internal matters, we see no option but to remove all current BOA members.

4. Other matters identified in audit of 11/3/2008

The (DOR) audit identifies a number of other grave concerns, including the BOA’s passage of a policy regarding conservation use that directly contravened state law. Specifically, those concerns are:

•A tendency to micro-manage the county appraisal staff.

•Adopting a policy on conservation use breach that is in direct conflict with state law.

•Changing residential property records to reappraise recently sold property at or near the new sales price, damaging the uniformity of assessments while distorting the sales ratio and study results.

•Allowing inconsistencies in the appraisal of commercial properties.

•Improperly using soil productivity ratings, soil classes, land desirability ratings, and land influences, and mis-reporting of acreage, all in connection with rural land.

•Improperly applying neighborhood and location factors in “incorporated” areas of the county.

These concerns identified by the DOR, like the others discussed in this notice, constitute “failure to perform the duties or requirements” of a BOA member and justify the removal under OCGA 48-5-295 (b).

Right to contest grounds

You are entitled to an opportunity to appear before the BOC and respond to the charges outlined in this notice, if you would like to do so. Unless you sooner resign, your removal is not complete until such time, and you remain BOA members until then. If you wish to respond, you will be allowed to do so at a called meeting of the BOC on April 21 at 6 p.m. in the public meeting room of the Madison County Government Complex. You will each be given 20 minutes to present whatever information and documentation you wish.

In closing

We do not relish taking this action, but rather do so reluctantly. This decision was reached only after much deliberation and anguish that led us to conclude that there is simply no alternative and that this action must be taken for the good of the country.

We urge you also to remember the good of the county and consider resigning. You will recall that just last week, the CEO of General Motors was placed in a similar position and chose to resign with good humor and good wishes for the future success of his company. He undoubtedly felt “in the right” and that he was being unjustly blamed for the myriad problems in his organization, just as you all probably do. He certainly had the resources and ability to stage a long and ugly fight to vindicate his good name. However, he obviously determined that doing so would make things worse on his employees and the American people, and he took the high road. We bear no personal animosity towards any of you, and regard each of you also as the caliber of person who would choose the high road. We would welcome the opportunity to recognize and praise you for having done so.

If you nonetheless choose to contest, then that is your right, and the BOC will listen carefully to your presentation and diligently consider everything you have to say.