02/06/2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vice Chairman O'Bryan thought it was irrelevant to have a second Attorney Special Magistrate's opinion. It is his opinion that either decision would not prevent one of the parties from taking this to circuit court. VAB Attorney Hancock agreed with Vice Chairman O'Bryan's assessment, but he stressed that we do need to ensure that the VAB process is fair, and if the DOR thinks that our process may not be fair, then he recommended that we approve a second hearing. Chairman Davis wondered what type of standing the DOR would have in a circuit court proceeding between the Property Appraiser and the Petitioner, and learned that the DOR could file a brief, but the VAB is not typically part of that lawsuit. Attorney Julie Zahniser introduced herself as the Attorney and Representative of the owners of the eight Petitions in this matter. In terms of going to court, she stated there are really two issues: (1) the agricultural classification, which may or may not go to court, and (2) the issue of whether the VAB is going to be sued for improperly conducting the VAB process. When she listened to the VAB meeting recording, "it seemed that everyone followed the herd and voted that way," she said. She pointed out that said meeting was not to be a hearing. She said there was ex -parte communication made by the Property Appraiser, as well as arguments by the VAB. She said it was very prejudicial. Secondly, she continued to say that Vice Chairman O'Bryan said that he visited the property, which is new evidence, and a year after the assessment. She said it may not be relevant, but it was brought before the Board. She explained that these are two major clauses that are subject to ethics complaints and would subject this Board to a lawsuit. In her opinion, she did not think the Board would have a prayer in winning. She said the DOR felt very strongly that the Board's action was inappropriate. She also brought this matter to the Auditor General's attention and they are looking at auditing the VAB. Chairman Davis asked Ms. Zahniser if she agreed with the VAB Attorney's suggestion that this matter be sent back to the Special Magistrate, and she said that she would rather not have another hearing. She stated the role of the VAB was not to substitute judgment based on the facts defined by the Special Magistrate. Her main reason for saying that was the Board did not have all the facts. She continued to define the purpose of the American Bee Company. Chairman Davis inquired if the VAB does not have the ability to reject a Special Magistrate's decision, then he questioned why were they holding a meeting. Ms. Zahniser explained that the VAB does have the ability to reject a Special Magistrate's decision, based on procedural due process. She proceeded to define the three statutes that the Board is to base their opinion. VAB SECOND FINAL MEETING Page - 4 - FEBRUARY 6, 2014