Jump to content



Photo

PTA-BOA

What the heck is that?

  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#21 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 30 January 2015 - 07:40 PM

Sure, why not? She's got the knowledge and qualifications to do the job, and I believe she is ethical enough to do the job fairly and not use the position to "get back" at the assessor for winning the election.

 I don't doubt the knowledge etc.,  Ethics....but if the shoe was on the other foot there'd be a howl heard from here....all the way to Cowboy Alley.  :laugh:

 

Also ....it's perhaps, mildly interesting that nobody here on the chatter mentioned who we were talking about until this recent post. Funny.   

 

Of course the Commissioners should pause before they make such an appointment. It would be a rotten idea. Even if every call was top notch some would claim any decision that overturned the decision was from other motives. I thought the chatterers wanted impeccable unimpeachable operators? Like...integrity....it matters. 


Edited by Pesty Version 2, 30 January 2015 - 07:44 PM.

  • Jeff all my Life likes this

#22 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts

Posted 30 January 2015 - 08:11 PM

Well, Pesty, let me be the first that calls "BS!"  I continue to read posts about the Dems "good ole boy" regime, but here I am, a Dem, asking Pubs to not stack this OVERSIGHT board with Dems to serve a Dem.  Tina's qualifications and ethics are above reproach.  Because, yes, integrity DOES matter, and I'm honored to know the people who believe & live this philosophy.


  • IntegrityMatters, GrumpyGranny, kelley and 2 others like this

#23 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,165 posts

Posted 30 January 2015 - 08:17 PM

 I thought the chatterers wanted impeccable unimpeachable operators? Like...integrity....it matters. 

 

And Tina isn't either of those things?

 

And all of our current elected and appointed officials are?

 

:laugh:


  • kelley, snowman and Donna like this

#24 Jeff all my Life

Jeff all my Life

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 30 January 2015 - 08:53 PM

If the Dems were to put the loser of an election onto an oversight committee, there most certainly would be howling.

#25 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts

Posted 30 January 2015 - 09:42 PM

That "loser" is a Pub.  This Dem is saying that the oversight board should NOT be all Dems (they also don't have the credentials, the Pub does.)  This oversight board is for taxpayer (Dems, Pubs, Indys, Libs) appeals.  Do you really want it controlled by only one party?


  • kelley and Diogenes like this

#26 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 30 January 2015 - 09:43 PM

Tina and I don't always see eye to eye on things, well we seldom see eye to eye, but the little gal has integrity and honesty. The democrats can't take that away from her.  She would be an asset to the board. Vicki does a good job and has qualities equal to Tina. The two of them will find common ground and be able to get along.  It will be a good learning experience for everyone.


  • IntegrityMatters, GrumpyGranny, Bigfoot and 3 others like this

#27 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts

Posted 30 January 2015 - 09:57 PM

That's just it, Mike,  Pubs are facilitating Dem wishes by blocking her from the appointment.  Taxpayers deserve better.  There must be diversity on the oversight board.


Edited by Donna, 30 January 2015 - 09:58 PM.

  • kelley likes this

#28 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 30 January 2015 - 10:37 PM

And Tina isn't either of those things?

 

And all of our current elected and appointed officials are?

 

:laugh:

As Ronald Reagan used to say....'There you go again!"   I didn't challenge Tina's  integrity or being impeccable etc.  

 

I said any decision she renders is subject to criticism that she is motivated by other motives because she is judging the decisions of the person who beat her for Assesor.  I am NOT saying it be valid type criticism. But .... some people might wonder.  Seems like the ethos of some on the CCC is to

avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.   

 

Besides...did the public not just render ITS decision on whose assessing talents it wanted ?   You guys want to put the loser in oversight over the one chosen by the public?   I think Pesty is dreaming or maybe I'm drunk...because this can't be real. 



#29 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 30 January 2015 - 10:42 PM

That "loser" is a Pub.  This Dem is saying that the oversight board should NOT be all Dems (they also don't have the credentials, the Pub does.)  This oversight board is for taxpayer (Dems, Pubs, Indys, Libs) appeals.  Do you really want it controlled by only one party?

 

This is getting funny.  But, no.....I don't think anybody wants the board to be all Dems. Nobody said that as far as I know.  I think just about any other qualified Republican would be fine. But don't kid a kidder.  You don't put the election loser over the election winner unless you deliberately are trying to stir the fecal matter. 



#30 Jeff all my Life

Jeff all my Life

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 05:24 AM

That "loser" is a Pub. This Dem is saying that the oversight board should NOT be all Dems (they also don't have the credentials, the Pub does.) This oversight board is for taxpayer (Dems, Pubs, Indys, Libs) appeals. Do you really want it controlled by only one party?


No. But I think you can find someone who didn't just lose the election and probably has ambitions to run again for the same office or another.

#31 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 05:58 AM

How many level 3 assessor/appraiser's do you know? 

 

The oversight board only comes into play when a taxpayer challenges an assessment. 

 

As both women are competent and professional, it's not likely a cat fight will commence.


  • GrumpyGranny and Diogenes like this

#32 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 06:21 AM

Pesty doesn't think anybody wants the board to be all Dems, and yet, that is the offering.  But, "any other" qualified Republican would be acceptable.  All this with a majority Republican presence on the council & commissioners.  As far as I can tell, this is a matter of real estate value for taxation purposes.  If there is a dispute on that issue, lodged by a taxpayer, said taxpayer should have an impartial hearing on the facts presented.  That's not likely to happen with a HANDPICKED, all one party board.  But, yeah, go ahead and hand me a stick, Pesty.  I'll be happy to stir the fecal matter since this stinks to me. 


  • kelley and Not Super But Honest Mike like this

#33 Jeff all my Life

Jeff all my Life

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 06:23 AM

How many level 3 assessor/appraiser's do you know?

The oversight board only comes into play when a taxpayer challenges an assessment.

As both women are competent and professional, it's not likely a cat fight will commence.


I know it's not. But it could create a bad situation if there is disagreement. I sure there is one more republican that can be appointed to this position.

It's probably just best to avoid that situation.

#34 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,457 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 06:35 AM

Which level 3 assessor/appraiser Republican would you nominate?  Otherwise, you will get an all Dem oversight board for a Dem public servant.  Good luck, taxpayers.


  • kelley likes this

#35 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,112 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 06:58 AM

I don't get the fear of disagreement.

There is a reason for the board and a reason for the assessor to explicitly be prohibited from voting on the board and a reason for there to be a balance of parties and a reason for not several members to be county employees and a reason for the members to be the most qualified. This board is overseeing the work of the assessor.

The "con" argument boils down to the current assessor wouldn't like it, and that's an exceptionally lame argument against doing the right thing.
  • IntegrityMatters and Donna like this

#36 Jeff all my Life

Jeff all my Life

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 07:03 AM

Which level 3 assessor/appraiser Republican would you nominate? Otherwise, you will get an all Dem oversight board for a Dem public servant. Good luck, taxpayers.


I'm sorry Donna, I just don't see the situation so dire. I'm willing to believe that there is another qualified republican in the county.

And I will also reiterate, that if the situation was reversed, there would be many statements of "ignoring the decision of the voters" or "setting up the candidate for the next election".

Let's just avoid that and find another qualified republican.

#37 Jeff all my Life

Jeff all my Life

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 07:10 AM

I don't get the fear of disagreement.

There is a reason for the board and a reason for the assessor to explicitly be prohibited from voting on the board and a reason for there to be a balance of parties and a reason for not several members to be county employees and a reason for the members to be the most qualified. This board is overseeing the work of the assessor.

The "con" argument boils down to the current assessor wouldn't like it, and that's an exceptionally lame argument against doing the right thing.


First, I don't think anyone has said whether the assessor
would like it or not. And I would caution anyone from speaking for her.

Second, the election is over and the voters spoke, so let's just find another republican.

#38 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,112 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 07:14 AM

I'm sorry Donna, I just don't see the situation so dire. I'm willing to believe that there is another qualified republican in the county.

And I will also reiterate, that if the situation was reversed, there would be many statements of "ignoring the decision of the voters" or "setting up the candidate for the next election".

Let's just avoid that and find another qualified republican.



There are very few individuals with the certifications Martina was required to get to be qualified to be a county assessor, the same certifications specifically mentioned in the statute for appointment to this board. It was an expensive process with rigorous standards.

The investment she made in this certification makes her, to our knowledge, the ONLY qualified Republican in the county.

Something else important to note is that this same certification makes her eligible to work as a taxpayer rep. That is, she can work professionally to help taxpayers with those same assessment appeals the board would be reviewing. It's my understanding she has committed not to work as a taxpayer rep if appointed to the board as that would be a conflict. However, if she isn't appointed, there's a darn fine chance things will get real adversarial when the most qualified, most tinancious, most adorable taxpayer rep in Clark County starts assisting with appeals.
  • Donna likes this

#39 Jeff all my Life

Jeff all my Life

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 07:18 AM

I'm sure Haire can handle herself. But you're concern is commendable.

#40 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,112 posts

Posted 31 January 2015 - 07:19 AM

First, I don't think anyone has said whether the assessor
would like it or not. And I would caution anyone from speaking for her.

Second, the election is over and the voters spoke, so let's just find another republican.



I'm not speaking for her. The ones bending over backwards to do anything but the easiest and most legal thing are the ones giving that appearance and saying as much in their excuses.

How easy would it be to just follow the statute and appoint the qualified Republican who has expressed interest? Yet they can't do it and have instead tabled the appointments twice.
  • snowman likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users