| Author |
Message |
    
Winkydink
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 1:01 pm: |     |
An attorney has been hired to defend the T.C.? I was unaware that there is yet a case against the T.C. Oh I get it (pardon my lapse of sanity), you must be saying that the T.C. has again withheld information from us...they have hired an "independent expert" to review the reval but just coincidently, this expert can be prepared for the inevitable lawsuits which will come due to the T.C.'s lack of oversight of the reval process and their subsequesnt attempts to coverup inequities in that process like the issues of LAND VALUES, DEPRECIATION PERCENTAGES, and CLASS/QUALITY CATEGORIES.
Does anyone know if it is LEGAL to use different methodologoes to calculate land values in different parts of town? |
Franny
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 1:24 pm: | |
Jerry - Why do you have to get nasty with Dytunck?
Dyunck shared information about your/our "independent auditor". Information that you were privy to and we were not. Information that certainly sheds some light on where the att'y's legal expertise really lies.
You've taped the windows and you're prepared for a hurricane but you've told the people that you're expecting light showers.
BTW - I've heard that you're an administrator on this board - is that true? |
Interalia
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 1:35 pm: | |
Dytunck:
Thank you for sharing your research. I was curious if you knew the outcomes of the municipal reviews in the towns you cited. I have not been comfortable with any of this; starting with the botched CV reval, the TC's refusal to sue them for money back, the arbitrary reduction for some of an instant across the board adjustment of $50,000, now this Harry Haushalter. Who is representing us, if he is representing them? |
Kap
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 1:41 pm: | |
Random thoughts: Smarmy was the exact right word, IMHO. Why would one ASSUME that Harry Haushalter ONLY does defenses for municipalities? On what basis can one say that he has "made a career out of defending government against taxpayers". If the info pulled from the web by Dytunck is all that the man has done in the last 3 years he's not making much of a living. (Check it out yourself. It's not as insidious as its made out to be) What would one's agenda be for making and posting such a supposition without real substantion? Is it fair to imply that the TC is "stacking the deck" on the basis of this very limited information? There is a contract for services between the TC and Haushalter that I assume spells out what his duties are. (But I suppose even if the contract clearly states that he is to give an unbiased review of the valuation that it will be suspect as well to some.) Could the TC have done a better PR job during the early phases of this whole process. Absolutely. From my perspective, that mistake has been recognized and more than adequately addressed. BTW, Check out LSeltzer's and jerrys maps on another thread. Pretty amazing work. |
Dave
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 1:56 pm: | |
Franny,
Jerry is not an administrator on this board. However, I will be accepting applications ;)
Dave |
Interalia
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 2:06 pm: | |
Kap:
Jerry's maps, in fact his entire web site, is a work of art (labor of love)...and frankly, the best thing to come out of the reval debacle. With respect to your comments directed at Dytunck, I did ask him if he knew the results of the municipal 'investigations' he cited. It would help to know that. However, here again we have the TC entering into a contract without input from the public on their selection. Unfortunately, there is a little 'paranoia' going around Maplewood; everyone is skeptical and defensive. The more that is handled or decided 'under wraps', the more it adds to the paranoia. |
Citizen
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 3:40 pm: | |
On Thursday, January 25, 2001 (10:19pm), Mr. Ryan wrote of the third-party review:
"2. a motion to get quotes and a scope of work statement for an outside expert review of the work done on Maplewood's reval. It was suggested later by a gentleman (whose name I've forgotten, sorry) that we might approach the Public Administration school at Rutgers for this. WeÅre just looking for quotes at the moment and have not discussed or determined the process to use to select or how we'll specifically conduct this. The problem with the "Citizen's Committee" suggestion that I see is from a practical standpoint: how to pick, who to pick, etc. Cries of "cronyism" from all sides!! :-) In my view the best process is public on scope of work and selection and a large public readout that everyone can hear and be comfortable with..."
Cronyism, Mr. Ryan? Credibility of the process? When will this charade stop, Mr. Ryan? The News-Record supported the citizen review panel concept...the TC wanted nothing to do with it. And now this. Just doesn't seem right, does it?
Nice move. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 10:50 pm: | |
I repeat: why WOULDN'T the TC hire someone with a lot of expertise in tax cases? And where would people think that he'd get such expertise? What is wrong with that? Several accusations have been made about things being done illegally. Shouldn't we retain someone with a lot of legal expertise in the area to advise us if any of that is true? We're not retaining him for a court case, we're retaining him for an expert opinion. All of the experience listed in Henry's posting shows that he DOES have the necessary expertise to render an expert opinion.
And since we did all this in public and this person's name is available to you all so that you can make these various accusations, I hardly think you can accuse the TC of "keeping information from the public".
Octofoil, you and others seem to me to be pre-supposing a result of this review. I don't know what it will say, but I am sure that any result favorable to CV or Galante in any way will be taken by some as "proof" that the review was "rigged" and the process was "flawed" (just as some folks take any extensions sought by the TC on behalf of the citizens, or any adjustment made to any assessment, as "proof" that the TC must "reject and redo). How does expertise "stack the deck" or create a "rubber stamp"?
And, Citizen, please spare me. But I do hope to see you at the large public readout on Wednesday. Where EVERYONE, not a hand-picked committee, will hear a readout from qualified professionals. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 7:24 am: | |
Mr.Ryan:
My understanding was that the TC was going to hire an "independent" expert to review CV's work.
It appears that the main person hired to do this work has a record of only working for municipalities. This thread is just questioning such a person's ability to be "independent" in his review.
While I realize this is not a court case, I am very familar with using experts in court because of my job. The easiest "expert" to discredit is one who only works for the defense or for the plaintiffs because their credibility can be questioned. I am afraid the TC has gotten into that sort of bind in hiring a lawyer with what appears to be a background in only working for municipalities in tax matters.
This is a perception the TC is going to have to live with throughout this process. |
Franny
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 8:34 am: | |
BobK - thanks for saying it clearly and rationally. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 9:03 am: | |
Bobk:
>>I am afraid the TC has gotten into that sort of bind in hiring a lawyer with what appears to be a background in only working for municipalities in tax matters.
Of course, you are assuming that he only works for municipalities in tax matters because that's the only evidence that has been presented here. And, of course, it makes sense that the only evidence on easily-accessible public record would be his work in defense of governments, because that has to be in the records of those governments.
I just called Harry Haushalter's office and asked if he also works for individuals in tax matters against governmental entities and was told yes, of course he does. I would like to point out that, from what any of us actually know right now, the bulk of his business is in defending individuals in tax cases and not governments.
I really shouldn't be surprised any more, but I'm still taken aback when I see someone make an unsubstantiated accusation on this board and others flock to assume it's true and complete. You all ought to think a little more critically. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 9:10 am: | |
Bobk: The operative phrase in your posting is "it appears".
Someone posts the names of some towns that Haushalter worked for, and now "it appears that the main person hired to do this work has a record of only working for municipalities".
Have you looked at Mr. Haushalter's resume? Do you know his work history? A single posting by a disgruntled individual (and, sorry, Henry, but that word is accurate, too) creates this impression?
The resume opens with this paragraph: "Harry Haushalter, Esq. provides specialized counsel and representation to private clients, municipal attorneys, tax assessors and other public and private professionals who require assistance in property tax and state tax matters. Mr. Haushalter concentrates his practice in these fields and related litigation."
The end of his resume says "Mr. Haushalter provides both public and private clients with specialized advice, including opinion letters on specific property tax issues."
It appears that the original poster is wrong about Mr. Haushalter, and the impression that you have thus formed (that he only works for municipalities) is wrong.
I know that there are individuals wishing to discredit the TC, Galante, CV, etc. by pouncing on every statement and every action. I am dealing with postings along this line all the time (the original poster had one the night before about how the TC's changed the tax rate to 3.11% after more adjustments: untrue!). In fact someone will, I am sure, post that we've "kept his resume from the public".
I repeat something I've said a few times on this thread: it appears to me that if the report makes any positive statements about CV or Galante, there will be a flurry of shouts from some people about how "the process is fixed".
Come to the meeting Wednesday. Listen to the report. Read the report. Judge for yourself. But don't, please, pre-judge. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 9:14 am: | |
Watch out, Larry, next someone will accuse you of being a closet TC member, or of being married to one of us. |
Franny
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 9:38 am: | |
Jerry -(9:10) good point esp. last paragraph!
(9:14) unnecessary baiting - why do you get so personal? You are simultaneously trying to bring the town together and acting childishly and encouraging division within Maplewood. Please remember your elected position and stop making playground taunts/giggled asides. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 9:41 am: | |
Personal? Are we reading the same board? |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 9:46 am: | |
Mr. Ryan:
Good points that you should have brought out earlier in response to the gentleman who posted the resume information.
I would suggest that Mr. Haushalter's resume be handed out at the meeting on Wednesday evening.
Also, we are still waiting for the neigborhood definition information to be disclosed. While to late for the informal review, this information is needed by those who plan on going to the tax board. |
Franny
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 10:03 am: | |
Jerry - you make comments that are unbecoming to your position as an elected official. The rest of the TC (whether I agree with the way they've handled the reval or not) have comported themselves with the dignity and restraint that befits our elected officials. You get personal digs in, and if you weren't a township official I would agree that you can call people "smarmy" or whatever adjective you want to. You hold a position as our elected official and I would venture to say that you sully your reputation and the reputation of the TC when you get into grudge matches.
I think you've done so much to help clarify this process and then you take 3 steps backwards when you get nasty. |
Shakespeare
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 10:12 am: | |
Franny,
Since you raised the question of sullied reputations, why are you posting rumours about Jerry being an administrator on the board? How is that helpful to you or anyone else?
You make useful comments then take 3 steps back by entering useless gossip. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 10:18 am: | |
Franny: I'm just trying to keep my sense of humor here in a forum that's turned increasingly nasty. In any event, I don't feel a need to justify myself to you, or to debate how I don't measure up to your image of a TC member. My personal conduct speaks for itself: I put a lot of time into this job, I am very accessable, and I give out a lot of information. I sign my name to everything I do.
I ignore most of the digs and personal stuff but some of it either can't be allowed to pass without comment, or without a chuckle. Often times the chuckle is at myself. This helps me deal with the harassing phone calls, online nastiness, and personal threats in town.
Sorry if you don't like it. |
Franny
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 10:37 am: | |
I didn't know you were being personally threatened and receiving harrassing phone calls. That must be horrible for you personally. On the other hand, I think that your "humour" is often unclear - at least it is to me. In my opinion you, as an elected official, have to take the high road more than an average citizen does. Just provide the facts without getting personal - even when they are wrong and you are right.
Sheakespeare: I wasn't trying to start a rumour about Jerry being on the board - that's a rumour that's been flying around. I heard his name was on the administrator's page and then it was taken away. If Dave says it's not true, then I'm glad I asked. |
|