You are here
Assessors and Government Ethics
Thursday, September 27th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
According to an
investigative article on Nashville's WTVF-TV site yesterday
evening, a former property assessor had help from a
developer in disposing of her home and buying one from the
developer, and also undervalued nine of the developer's properties by a
total of $9.5 million over three years.
The assessor says that the developer offered the same help to everyone in her subdivision, that what happened was therefore not a gift. But the gift aspect is only a part of the problem here. Even the preferential treatment given to the developer is only part of the problem.
An assessor should have no relationship with a developer whose properties she assesses. This is one of those situations where government ethics is so important, where its emphasis on relationships and appearances, whether or not there was a gift or preferential treatment, would lead an ethics adviser to tell the assessor that she should not even purchase a property from a company she could benefit or be seen as benefiting. This would prevent the gift and preferential treatment issues, whether real or apparent.
Developers too should be encouraged to seek advice whenever there is a question of them dealing with an official in any way that does not concern public business.
When there is no ethics program and no ethics officer to advise officials and those doing business with or regulated by a local government, there appears to be no reason for an official or developer to seek independent, professional advice. And then things like this happen.
In fact, most ethics programs are limited to officials, sometime include contractors, less often include those seeking a permit or grant, but rarely cover those who are regulated by a local government, including those who are taxed. We all pay property taxes, directly or indirectly. But developers and other major landowners have an especially strong interest in lowering their taxes. A developer should be subject to an ethics code, at least with respect to a relationship with an assessor or anyone who can influence an assessor, even when the developer is not seeking any benefit other than lower taxes.
How should this situation be handled? The $9.5 million undervaluation figure comes from a state auditor. The auditor's office should be asked to explain how it came up with the figure, and the assessor and developer can dispute the figure. Once a figure is determined, it can be translated into the amount of taxes lost to the county. The assessor and the developer should be required to make restitution for this amount.
In many jurisdictions, property assessments are made not by officials, but by contractors. These contractors are rarely subject to ethics programs, where they exist. They are not required to file disclosure statements or to disclose possible conflicts, they do not get ethics training and are not encouraged to seek ethics advice. And yet they can do exactly what the assessor did. This is another reason why it is so important that all contractors be fully subject to an ethics code, including training and disclosure requirements and the encouragement of seeking advice.
The assessor says that the developer offered the same help to everyone in her subdivision, that what happened was therefore not a gift. But the gift aspect is only a part of the problem here. Even the preferential treatment given to the developer is only part of the problem.
An assessor should have no relationship with a developer whose properties she assesses. This is one of those situations where government ethics is so important, where its emphasis on relationships and appearances, whether or not there was a gift or preferential treatment, would lead an ethics adviser to tell the assessor that she should not even purchase a property from a company she could benefit or be seen as benefiting. This would prevent the gift and preferential treatment issues, whether real or apparent.
Developers too should be encouraged to seek advice whenever there is a question of them dealing with an official in any way that does not concern public business.
When there is no ethics program and no ethics officer to advise officials and those doing business with or regulated by a local government, there appears to be no reason for an official or developer to seek independent, professional advice. And then things like this happen.
In fact, most ethics programs are limited to officials, sometime include contractors, less often include those seeking a permit or grant, but rarely cover those who are regulated by a local government, including those who are taxed. We all pay property taxes, directly or indirectly. But developers and other major landowners have an especially strong interest in lowering their taxes. A developer should be subject to an ethics code, at least with respect to a relationship with an assessor or anyone who can influence an assessor, even when the developer is not seeking any benefit other than lower taxes.
How should this situation be handled? The $9.5 million undervaluation figure comes from a state auditor. The auditor's office should be asked to explain how it came up with the figure, and the assessor and developer can dispute the figure. Once a figure is determined, it can be translated into the amount of taxes lost to the county. The assessor and the developer should be required to make restitution for this amount.
In many jurisdictions, property assessments are made not by officials, but by contractors. These contractors are rarely subject to ethics programs, where they exist. They are not required to file disclosure statements or to disclose possible conflicts, they do not get ethics training and are not encouraged to seek ethics advice. And yet they can do exactly what the assessor did. This is another reason why it is so important that all contractors be fully subject to an ethics code, including training and disclosure requirements and the encouragement of seeking advice.
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
