| Author |
Message |
    
Townie
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 2:01 pm: |     |
Joancrystal,
I have always recommended that people appeal who believe they have any reason to. I have not disbelieved people who tell me Certified either made errors or treated them poorly.
I have yet to meet anybody outside the Jefferson area who says there is a large number of people in town supporting the reval because they believe their houses are underassessed and don't want them assessed afresh. Nobody that I know in other parts of town is tee-heeing about a low assessment, nor do they believe their neighborhood is underassessed. When I moved to Maplewood, it was just a quirk that I knew more people living around Maplecrest Park and other places than I did in the Jefferson area, so I've heard a fair amount of feedback about the reval from friends outside my own neighborhood. I've come to believe the story that other people "know" their homes are underassessed is a myth.
I think another reval would produce another round of assessment errors, and cause a different set of (or the same?) home owners to appeal, but I don't think that the majority of people who support the reval are doing so out of fear of seeing an assessor again. What I hear is that they just don't see any point to re-doing it and we'd prefer the town not be taxed another $500,000 to get the same results. That's not a minority view.
I think the independent auditor will settle authoritatively the issue of whether the magnitude of Certified's errors or anything else that might be wrong with the process means that the reval needs to be redone. If it turns out that it does, I'll cheerfully support re-doing the reval. Everyone is entitled to a legal and accurate assessment of their house. |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 2:20 pm: | |
Townie and Njjoseph,
Nope and nope. Apples and oranges here, folks. Reviewing books and records is fundamentally different from real estate valuation. Not a good analogy.
And Townie, if you can demonstrate to me that the LGBR folks are anything but independent, I'll certainly opt to not have them in. I am decidely the opposite of trusting of local government. In fact, I'm very much of the old school: "In God we trust, everybody else pays cash." (Of course, that was before credit cards came along! See, I told you it was "old" school!)
One more thing, Townie: if thats not the pot calling the kettle black! I haven't read anybody on this board that appears to trust local government more than you!
Speaking of independence, does anyone know who audits the books and records of the township? Perhaps they are the folks that should be doing the LGBR-type of thing, if indeed one is to be done.... |
Townie
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 3:00 pm: | |
Octofoil,
I've defended the TC a lot on these boards against what I think are misrepresentations of their behavior during this reval fight, and have often said it's a mystery as to what went on prior to December. But I've never taken anything they said on faith. I took every statement they said and checked it out. What I've said is that their statements by and large checked out to be true, other people's didn't.
My objections to this LGBR board are fundamental. I don't like boards like that. Among other things, I think they make for a lazy citizenry. Local citizens can use their noggins and make these decisions. And if they don't like the way things go, they can vote, petition, have referendums, recalls, to do things some other way.
There is this illusion people have that you can take the politics out of politics. You can't. It's about taxing ourselves and spending our money, not lifting up the hood of the car or running it like a corporation or any of that. You want a cleaner Springfield Avenue. I want the town to fix the gutters on Durand Road. (Ahem, TC.) You want to bring in someone from Trenton to review this? Why?
BTW, the TC didn't provide money to fix the stone gutters on Durand Road following Hurricane Floyd. Their decision cost me more out-of-pocket money last year, I'll wager, than almost anyone else on these boards. I just haven't seen fit to call them names about it, not believing that's a constructive way to discuss community matters. ;-) If you want to send a crew of free masons from Trenton, I'm interested.
PS: You asked if these people are independent? They're government bureaucrats. Their first loyalty is not to Maplewood, but to justifying their own existence. If you want fine tuning, bright site-specific ideas and fresh angle on town matters, I think you're starting your search in the wrong place. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 4:50 pm: | |
Good grief Melidere, lighten up! I will give up on the parking meter item if the TC gets a better sound system. At least we'll be able to hear, as well as feel, our taxes go up! |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 6:29 pm: | |
Townie,
The length and tone of your last post addressed to me leads me to think you may have taken my last post considerably more seriously than it was intended! I tend to use emoticons, etc., somewhat sparingly, so if my last to you came across more seriously than intended, I apologize. It was intended to be lighter in tone than apparently perceived. Permit me to repeat something that I've said before: I value (and I think other contributors do as well) your thoughts and opinions. They are typically well-reasoned and thoughtful (even if I don't always agree!).
Fine-tuning, perhaps not, but site-specific ideas and fresh looks at town matters: those are things that I'm becoming more friendly towards. Thats why I asked about the township's auditors. All of the larger auditing firms have consulting practices these days and they all have specialists in municipal and local govt. If the LGBR doesn't suit, how about a PriceWaterhouse, Andersen, KPMG, et al? Certainly would be independent, etc., but would cost more. Anyone ??? |
Townie
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 6:35 pm: | |
Dyntunck,
Your message had already disappeared into the archive before I revisited this thread.
You'll note Joancrystal has since given her view of the townwide reaction to the assessment. Everybody probably has some take on how the town is taking this, and people don't have to be professional journalists or pollsters to report the scene. The reason I said most people in town believe their house is assessed at market value is because you'd see and hear more public activity coming from other parts of town if it was otherwise. During the controversy about the schools several years ago, I never stopped hearing about it, wherever I went -- and I don't even have kids!
There's a lot of intermingling of people from all neighborhoods at the train station, a lot gossip among friends who live around town. Actually, outside these boards, it's been hard to get up a discussion about the reval. Most people I know aren't interested, and that includes the people I know whose taxes are going up. Hence my statement of (well-founded) belief: If most people didn't think their house was assessed at market value, we'd be hearing much more noise than we are. And, boy, wouldn't Fairtax and others love to be showcasing evidence that masses of people from neighborhoods where taxes were going down or staying the same were saying their assessments were wrong.
Where are they? It's not persuasive to say: They're out there in the thousands but they refuse to admit it.
Circumstantial evidence, Dyntunck. You can't start objecting to it now. ;-) |
Townie
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 6:42 pm: | |
Octofoil,
I don't know what I said, but likewise. I certainly took nothing you said personally. I only wanted to keep hammering this idea into the ground. My long posts, as well as my resemblance to all or some members of the TC are discussed almost as frequently as the reval itself lately.
My final words on this subject: People work for who pays them, so that's who they aim to please. That's the extent of their independence. I figure the TC works for us. We pay them. We can fire them if they don't do the job we want them to do for Maplewood. Price Waterhouse works for Price Waterhouse. They'll try to serve their business interest (and the Trenton crowd will try to please their paymasters) before they do what is in the best interests of Maplewood. I think we are the only ones who can know what's in the town's best interests. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:03 pm: | |
Townie: I beg to differ. The TC position pays not quite $5,000 per year. Most of the members have real full time jobs in addition to families and spouses. What motivates them is either a love of town or love of the spotlight, you decide. And believe me, Price Waterhouse wants satisfied happy clients, not some numbskull brown-nosing the higher ups. |
Townie
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:14 pm: | |
Nilmeister,
Who are the numbskulls brown-nosing the higher ups if not the review crew from Trenton?
I doubt Price-Waterhouse comes cheap if they do this sort of thing (more ways to tax me!), and I would think they do their work with an eye on getting future work. Happy clients? You mean they'll arrange things to insure they're coming back? Or doing their work here to impress cost-cutters in other towns? Either way, their first loyalty is to their business and profit-making, not to us and Maplewood.
Whatever motivates the TC to work for us, we can take it away from them. I can't do that with PW once I've paid them for a service (I didn't need to begin with). |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:14 pm: | |
Townie,
I'm typically on the 7:15 to Penn. There is always discussion on the reval. |
Townie
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:17 pm: | |
Octofoil,
I always knew you had to get up pretty early in the morning to hear about the reval. ;-]
What's the train talk? Sleepy or what? |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:41 pm: | |
Townie,
> Correct: PW and any of the other Big 5 firms do not come cheap.
> Correct: ...they do their work with an eye on getting future work...
> Correct: Their first loyalty is to their business and profit-making.
> Dead wrong: your conclusion that the above premises make for a bad deal for M'wood. Quite the contrary. Those premises are the very reasons why anyone should consider hiring a consulting company. How does any company (consulting or otherwise) grow? By becoming known for the quality of their work (service or product). They can't do that if they're no longer in business because of not making a profit. If you doubt this, just ask Certified. They just failed to win a large contract largely due to the unfavorable reputation earned at our expense (reval train talk this morning). |
Townie
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 9:39 pm: | |
Octo (may I call you Octo? My fingers are getting tired!),
What is the measure of the quality of their work? (Meaning, the people you propose to bring in.) If we need to spend more to improve services or the quality of government here (raise the TC salaries?), do they say that? Is that good for their business reputation with other towns? If there are recommendations that would cause great outcries and articles in the NY Times, etc., do they make them? You bring these people in saying: We don't know anything, so how can you tell they are delivering you anything worth what you're paying them for?
I'm not persuaded we need any of this anyway. People always imagine cutting the fat is a worthwhile thing to do. I often think it's a waste of energy for the meager rewards gained. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 11:24 pm: | |
And the eyes in his head, see the world spining round.....round...round.... |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 11:27 pm: | |
Townie,
Not all consulting engagements are cost-cutting witch hunts. In fact, such tend to be the exception. In almost all cases where books and records and management and budgets and so on are concerned, there exists a body of knowledge that is generally referred to as "best practices". These "best practices" constitute the most up-to-date thinking on how various functions (treasury, human resources, purchasing, etc.) are best handled. These policies and procedures are generally regarded as the most efficient in the specific situation.
One of a consultant's primary tasks is to execute what is often referred as a "gap" analysis. This analysis identifies the differences between how the client is currently executing the funtion under examination versus best practices. Then, a program is recommended to close the "gap" between current methodologies/programs and best practices. Do these exercises result in reduced expenditures? Often, but not necessarily.
Do they recommend increasing expenditures? If it is appropriate, yes. For example, a recent engagement in which I was involved included recommendations for upgrading the qualifications for certain personnel, even though it would cost the client a considerable amount of money. The increased staffing costs is expected to be recouped plus some in reduced error rates, better information, etc.
Almost all consultancies have groups of folks that specialize in certain areas: financial services, municipal government, manufacturing, etc. Each of these groups attempts to not only stay abreast of current best practices in their respective fields, the best firms also actively engage in research and produce numerous white papers.
In our case, I am totally opposed to a cost-cutting witch-hunt regardless of whether it is performed by the LGBR folks or a Big 5 firm. The prospect of having someone undertake a "gap" or "best practices" analysis in certain selected areas (the assessor's function or the finance function, for example)has considerable appeal.
Fyi...
 |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 11:42 pm: | |
Octo,
i am not sure it isn't a big mischaracterization to equate this 'free' offer with high-quality (and high-cost) consulting services. Even the best consulting contract is beholden to both the mission it's been assigned and it's goals. Those are generally established by the people who are paying them and in this case, it isn't us.
A municipal budget, particularly in a town as small as ours, is about trade-offs and balancing interests. Some people live for the beauty of the flowerbeds in our parks, and some hold the services of the library dear. Do we want the hassle of ugly parking meters all over the place for the few bucks it makes us, or would we rather pay it as part of a tax? These are trade-offs and not easily quantified.
I want to be able to look at the people who are making these trade-offs and tell them how I feel about them. It's my money and my town.
I run into Ellen Davenport in the parking lot and she listens to what i think. I see Jerry at the ball game and he gets an earful about rent control.
If we want to hire a consultant to tell us about 'best practices' in labor contracts, then let's go for it.
But I don't have any clue what axe these guys from trenton have to grind. And basically, I don't believe you get anything for 'free'. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 12:10 am: | |
I had to switch to IE to accomplish this. Netscape didn't prompt me for the jpg.
<end drift> |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 12:12 am: | |
Melidere,
I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't intend to equate the two at all. The discussion of Big 5 type consultancies started when I inquired about the identity of the auditors for the township and continued with some discussion with Townie as to the nature of consulting engagements.
And of course, you're right, you don't get anything for free. In the case of the LGBR, you have to put up with an introduction that is blatantly political (at least it was in the Morris County reports that I read). Extolling the virtues of C. Whitman et al. Even if I were a Repub and a fan of C. Whitman, I suspect that I would have found it a bit much.
But, the content wasn't bad. Some pretty good analysis in there. Enough to make me swing more to the side of "why not" from "no way". |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 12:16 am: | |
Melidere,
Hey, nice image! I'll try again, but I dont think mine measures up to yours! |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 12:18 am: | |
 |
|