Judge affirms BOA firing
A Superior Court Judge affirmed the county commissioners’ April firing of four members of the Madison County Board of Assessors last week.
Here are the “conclusions and recommendations” issued by Judge John Bailey on Aug. 3:
“Ultimately, as noted, it is the BOC’s decision to remove or not remove members from the BOA. The mere lateness of the digest submittals alone justifies removal as a matter of law (Pope v. BD of Comm’rs, supra) and much other justification for removal has also been presented. This Court can hardly find that the BOC’s stated intention to remove these persons from the BOA is hasty or ill-advised.
The BOA essentially presented a single line of response to all the charges, to wit, that their less-than-complete control over personnel is the cause of all their problems. The Court finds this explanation difficult to accept. As admitted by Mr. (Larry) Stewart (the only of the four individual BOA members to testify), the only significant personnel power the BOA lacked was the power to fire the chief appraiser. The Court finds, as the BOA’s only other witness, George Hanson, testified on cross-examination, that the foundation of the BOA’s relationship with the chief appraiser should be communication and respect, not the constant threat of termination. While the BOA may have resented their lack of termination power, and while this may have even been a factor in the increasingly sour nature of their relationship with the former chief appraiser, the Court finds it a stretch to lay all the blame for the BOA’s repeated failures to submit timely digests on this doorstep.
Similarly, while this less than total control may have also been a factor in the search for a new chief appraiser, it does nothing to explain why the BOA was so late in exercising the one power it did have (i.e., to non-renew the former chief appraiser’s contract upon its expiration), nor why it could make no more than a single recommendation to replace him even after the position had been vacant for over three months. Furthermore, as Mr. Hanson also testified, a BOA that has exhibited a tendency to micromanage its chief, as this one so clearly has, is just as off-putting to potential candidates as is the specter of BOC control.
The lack of total personnel control does even less to explain the acrimonious and public turmoil among the BOA members themselves. The record contains evidence of numerous bitter and personal confrontations between various BOA members on various points of contention; none of those points of contention, however, were whether the BOC should have personnel control. The record, in fact, does not reflect any disagreement among the BOA members on that particular point, but it most certainly does reflect the uncivil and unbecoming disagreement among them on numerous others.
Finally, the BOA’s demonstrated micro-management of the chief and staff appraisers is least susceptible to this line of defense. The BOA’s record of giving direction to the chief appraiser on technical and minute matters is undisputed, and both the Department of Revenue audit and Mr. Hanson characterized this as inappropriate micro-management. It is illogical to think that greater control over personnel decisions would have done anything but increase, rather than decrease, the BOA’s tendencies in this regard.
None of this is to say that these BOA members, as persons, are evil or bad. Rarely, if ever, is one party to a dispute entirely right or wrong, and the Court does not find this to be such a rare circumstance. Regardless, however, it is obvious that a poisonous atmosphere has surrounded the BOA that tends to turn any issue into a bitter controversy and paralyzes the BOA from taking effective action. No individual BOA member is entirely to blame for that atmosphere; indeed, persons outside the BOA itself (e.g., the former chief appraiser) may have contributed to it as well. Nonetheless, that atmosphere has been created and persists, and the BOC is well within its rights to believe that removing all current members and “starting fresh,” particularly in light of the recent hire of a new chief appraiser from outside the county who carries none of the baggage of past events, is a good and wise course of action.
The Court recommends that the BOC do all it can to prevent that atmosphere from carrying over once these members are replaced. In this regard, the Court does not give significant consideration to the personnel control issue. The Court does not, as stated, believe this to be the cause of all problems within the BOA. Furthermore, the Court finds it obvious that leaving these particular BOA members in place, after they have already displayed such bitter relationships with one another and such strong tendencies to over-direct their professional staff, would almost certainly make things worse rather than better. Mr. Stewart’s claims that the BOA members have “learned their lesson” and can now get along with one another, and also with a new chief appraiser whom they obviously did not want to hire, may very well be sincere, but seem highly unlikely to be realized.
However, once a new BOA is in place, the Court does agree that it would be appropriate for the BOC to consider giving that new BOA personnel control to the maximum extent possible. The minutes of the BOC’s meeting on March 18, 2009, at which it re-took control of hiring authority from the BOA, reflect the BOC chairman’s stated desire to return personnel control to the BOA as soon as possible. The Court strongly recommends that the BOC hire Mr. George Hanson as a consultant to guide the BOC in developing guidelines and procedures for the new BOA and in developing a proper, efficient and functioning relationship between the BOC and BOA. The BOC should take full advantage of Mr. Hanson’s expertise in these areas and give serious consideration to his recommendations (should Mr. Hanson agree to act as a consultant to the BOC).
The Court further recommends that the new appointees to the BOA and all those who deal with them, including the BOC members, keep foremost in mind that the BOA is not a political body. There is no evidence that any BOC or BOA member has engaged in ‘politics’ in its narrow sene of attempting to influence individual property values for personal or political gain. Nonetheless, these BOA members have extensively engaged in politics in the broader sense of using their positions as a pulpit to express personal opinions to the public. The BOA is an appointed, not elected body, and as all agree at the hearing, its very purpose is to insulate the tax assessment process from politics. It is therefore not a place for persons seeking a public platform for their views. It is rather a place for persons with the inclination and temperament to work using the tools of communication and facilitation. In all of these matters, Mr. Hanson’s expertise would be of immeasurable value to the BOC and the citizens of Madison County.
The Court urges the BOC to consider these recommendations carefully, and it earnestly hopes that, in the best interests of all parties to these proceedings and all citizens of Madison County, these problems may finally be put in the past.”
This recommendation is issued this third day of August 2009.
Honorable John H. Bailey Jr.
Chief Judge, Superior Court of Madison County
“Ultimately, as noted, it is the BOC’s decision to remove or not remove members from the BOA. The mere lateness of the digest submittals alone justifies removal as a matter of law (Pope v. BD of Comm’rs, supra) and much other justification for removal has also been presented. This Court can hardly find that the BOC’s stated intention to remove these persons from the BOA is hasty or ill-advised.
The BOA essentially presented a single line of response to all the charges, to wit, that their less-than-complete control over personnel is the cause of all their problems. The Court finds this explanation difficult to accept. As admitted by Mr. (Larry) Stewart (the only of the four individual BOA members to testify), the only significant personnel power the BOA lacked was the power to fire the chief appraiser. The Court finds, as the BOA’s only other witness, George Hanson, testified on cross-examination, that the foundation of the BOA’s relationship with the chief appraiser should be communication and respect, not the constant threat of termination. While the BOA may have resented their lack of termination power, and while this may have even been a factor in the increasingly sour nature of their relationship with the former chief appraiser, the Court finds it a stretch to lay all the blame for the BOA’s repeated failures to submit timely digests on this doorstep.
Similarly, while this less than total control may have also been a factor in the search for a new chief appraiser, it does nothing to explain why the BOA was so late in exercising the one power it did have (i.e., to non-renew the former chief appraiser’s contract upon its expiration), nor why it could make no more than a single recommendation to replace him even after the position had been vacant for over three months. Furthermore, as Mr. Hanson also testified, a BOA that has exhibited a tendency to micromanage its chief, as this one so clearly has, is just as off-putting to potential candidates as is the specter of BOC control.
The lack of total personnel control does even less to explain the acrimonious and public turmoil among the BOA members themselves. The record contains evidence of numerous bitter and personal confrontations between various BOA members on various points of contention; none of those points of contention, however, were whether the BOC should have personnel control. The record, in fact, does not reflect any disagreement among the BOA members on that particular point, but it most certainly does reflect the uncivil and unbecoming disagreement among them on numerous others.
Finally, the BOA’s demonstrated micro-management of the chief and staff appraisers is least susceptible to this line of defense. The BOA’s record of giving direction to the chief appraiser on technical and minute matters is undisputed, and both the Department of Revenue audit and Mr. Hanson characterized this as inappropriate micro-management. It is illogical to think that greater control over personnel decisions would have done anything but increase, rather than decrease, the BOA’s tendencies in this regard.
None of this is to say that these BOA members, as persons, are evil or bad. Rarely, if ever, is one party to a dispute entirely right or wrong, and the Court does not find this to be such a rare circumstance. Regardless, however, it is obvious that a poisonous atmosphere has surrounded the BOA that tends to turn any issue into a bitter controversy and paralyzes the BOA from taking effective action. No individual BOA member is entirely to blame for that atmosphere; indeed, persons outside the BOA itself (e.g., the former chief appraiser) may have contributed to it as well. Nonetheless, that atmosphere has been created and persists, and the BOC is well within its rights to believe that removing all current members and “starting fresh,” particularly in light of the recent hire of a new chief appraiser from outside the county who carries none of the baggage of past events, is a good and wise course of action.
The Court recommends that the BOC do all it can to prevent that atmosphere from carrying over once these members are replaced. In this regard, the Court does not give significant consideration to the personnel control issue. The Court does not, as stated, believe this to be the cause of all problems within the BOA. Furthermore, the Court finds it obvious that leaving these particular BOA members in place, after they have already displayed such bitter relationships with one another and such strong tendencies to over-direct their professional staff, would almost certainly make things worse rather than better. Mr. Stewart’s claims that the BOA members have “learned their lesson” and can now get along with one another, and also with a new chief appraiser whom they obviously did not want to hire, may very well be sincere, but seem highly unlikely to be realized.
However, once a new BOA is in place, the Court does agree that it would be appropriate for the BOC to consider giving that new BOA personnel control to the maximum extent possible. The minutes of the BOC’s meeting on March 18, 2009, at which it re-took control of hiring authority from the BOA, reflect the BOC chairman’s stated desire to return personnel control to the BOA as soon as possible. The Court strongly recommends that the BOC hire Mr. George Hanson as a consultant to guide the BOC in developing guidelines and procedures for the new BOA and in developing a proper, efficient and functioning relationship between the BOC and BOA. The BOC should take full advantage of Mr. Hanson’s expertise in these areas and give serious consideration to his recommendations (should Mr. Hanson agree to act as a consultant to the BOC).
The Court further recommends that the new appointees to the BOA and all those who deal with them, including the BOC members, keep foremost in mind that the BOA is not a political body. There is no evidence that any BOC or BOA member has engaged in ‘politics’ in its narrow sene of attempting to influence individual property values for personal or political gain. Nonetheless, these BOA members have extensively engaged in politics in the broader sense of using their positions as a pulpit to express personal opinions to the public. The BOA is an appointed, not elected body, and as all agree at the hearing, its very purpose is to insulate the tax assessment process from politics. It is therefore not a place for persons seeking a public platform for their views. It is rather a place for persons with the inclination and temperament to work using the tools of communication and facilitation. In all of these matters, Mr. Hanson’s expertise would be of immeasurable value to the BOC and the citizens of Madison County.
The Court urges the BOC to consider these recommendations carefully, and it earnestly hopes that, in the best interests of all parties to these proceedings and all citizens of Madison County, these problems may finally be put in the past.”
This recommendation is issued this third day of August 2009.
Honorable John H. Bailey Jr.
Chief Judge, Superior Court of Madison County
Related entries by tags:
- Commerce man charged in string of church wiring thefts
- Library renovations ahead of schedule
- County digest takes a dive
- BOC talks T-SPLOST
- Fine Finish to move
- Library expansion groundbreaking ahead
- E-SPLOST vote set for Tuesday
- Referendum to renew sales tax for schools set for March 15
- County approves interpreters for traffic court
- Plans change on patrol car purchases
Former chief appraiser.
Why don't you come down from that BIG house on the hill? I think the air is to thin up there. If you knew 1/10 of what you think you know you might reach BRAIN DEAD level. Get the facts first buster then feel free to comment all you want.