Will Secret "Appeals" Board Show Up?

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Will Secret “Appeals” Board Show Up?

by Paul Bass | Sep 3, 2010 11:58 am

(26) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: City Hall

Thomas MacMillan File Photo Aldermen have subpoenaed recalcitrant mayoral appointees to a hearing to reveal whether New Haven taxpayers have been denied a legal opportunity to question their bills.

Meanwhile, the subpoenas themselves sparked a spat with City Hall.

Wooster Square Alderman Michael Smart had the subpoenas sent this week to Board of Assessment Appeals members Jacqueline Harris and Michael Newton. The subpoenas order them to appear at a Sept. 14 hearing of the aldermanic Tax Abatement Committee, which Smart chairs.

Smart had ordered them, without subpoenas, to appear at previous hearings dealing with an outpouring of public outrage this year over alleged problems with the city’s tax office and appeal board.

Harris and Newton, mayoral appointees, failed to show.

“They’ve been subpoenaed. We expect them to be there. They’ve been served,” Smart said Friday. “They need to show up. We’re not going to deal with any obstructions. We need to stop playing games here.”

The appeals board has failed to hold meetings in public or produce minutes of meetings or decisions, as required by law. This year, artists and small business people have filed complaints after receiving huge spikes in their tax bills, including across-the-board $5,000 assessments on personal property. Those hikes were levied by the tax assessor based not on inspections, but alleged industry “standards.” Complaining taxpayers reported sometimes bizarre encounters with the appeals board, and in some cases said they were told their appeals were granted, only to receive subsequent letters from the tax office saying the opposite. In one case, the owner of a for-profit downtown coffee shop appealed being charged for failing to submit paperwork required of not-for-profit organizations—and was denied. (Click here to read Betsy Yagla’s New Haven Advocate story first reporting the appeals board shenanigans.)

Smart said he plans to explore the question on Sept. 14 of whether the appeals board is “an independent body.”

Harris and Newton couldn’t be reached for comment for this story.

Mayor John DeStefano last month acknowledged problems with how the appeals board has functioned. He promised more support from City Hall staff.

Subpoena Proves Controversial

It took some haggling to get the subpoenas issued.

Smart originally asked city Corporation Counsel Victor Bolden to send them out.

“I said, ‘Let me do this: Because Jacqueline Harris had been talking to a lawyer in our office about other matters, for an abundance of caution, let’s have outside counsel do that. Let me know what you want to do,’” Bolden recalled telling Smart.

That’s fine, Smart responded: attorney Michael Jefferson agreed to prepare the subpoenas for the aldermen. And he agreed to do it for free.

“I said, ‘Fine,’” Bolden recalled. He said he added that his office needed to draw up a contract for Jefferson. Even though Jefferson was working pro bono, the city Code of Ordinances (section 2-162) still requires that the aldermen approve a contract with him, and the charter (Article V, Section 12, subsections c and d) still requires that the mayor sign it, Bolden said.

Bolden said he was surprised to get a call while attending a different aldermanic hearing this past Monday night, informing him that the subpoenas had gone out. He said he contacted Jefferson to tell him, “You don’t have a contract yet. Anything you’re doing in the interim can’t be considered something you’re doing on behalf of the city of New Haven.”

Click here to read a Wednesday email from Bolden to Jefferson, in which he says Jefferson cannot do what he did and seeks to refute charges that his office was slow to act.

Jefferson responded that he had provided Bolden with all the documentation he needed, and that Bolden “dragged his feet” in drawing up the contract. The date of the hearing was approaching. Jefferson also questioned whether Bolden’s office has a conflict of interest because of its counseling the subpoena targets, who are mayoral appointees.

“They asked me to accommodate them by providing proof of professional liability insurance, by drafting a proposed agreement, which I did,” Jefferson said. “That was that. Then [Bolden] sent out an email to the aldermanic leadership saying, ‘Look, we’re ready to go on this. We’re entering into a contractual agreement.’ We never heard back from him. We just sat around waiting.

“Once he sent out an email to the aldermanic leadership and he said, ‘We’re going to enter into this agreement with Mike Jefferson; get back to me if you have any problem with it.’ we waited a few days. Then I sent out the subpoenas.”

“What do they have to hide?” Jefferson asked. “Why weren’t these people there the first time? Why is he serving as an obstructionist this time?”

Bolden denied trying to stall or prevent the subpoenas from being issued.

The question of whether the subpoenas are valid has become moot, because Harris and Newton are planning to attend the hearing, Bolden added “The matter is really done for my purposes. Ms. Harris and Mr. Newton have agreed to appear voluntarily. Everything’s fine.”

“It’s not moot,” Jefferson responded. “They don’t know if [Harris and Newton are] going to show up. It’s not the first time they were requested to appear. They’ve already been asked to come to a hearing.”

Comments

posted by: Darnell on September 3, 2010 12:22pm

Tax Appeals Chairman Michael Smart doesn’t need Victor Bolden’s, Mayor John DeStefano’s, or anyone else’s permission to order and serve subpoenas, the City Charter specifically gives him and any other Chairman the authority to do so. Bolden is dead wrong to try to slow down this process, and should step away.

City Charter Sec. 44. Authority of certain boards, committees, officers to compel attendance and testimony of witnesses.

The presiding officer of the board of aldermen, of the several committees of said board, and of the several boards of commissioners, and the director of public works, shall respectively have power to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses before their respective boards, committees and departments over which they preside, by the issue of subpoenas and the administration of oaths in the manner and according to the rules governing the same in courts of justice; and when it shall be necessary to secure the attendance or testimony of witnesses before said boards, committees, departments or director of public works, such presiding officers and such director of public works, shall have the right to apply to the superior court for an order compelling any witness so summoned before them to testify; which courts shall have the power to issue subpoenas and to enforce the presence and testimony of all witnesses summoned in the same way and to the same extent as they now have power to enforce and compel the presence and testimony of witnesses in each of said courts. Failure of the chief executive or any other employee of any department, board, office or agency of the city to appear following the issuance of a subpoena therefore by the presiding officer of the board of aldermen or of one of the committees of said board, shall, upon vote of the board of aldermen, be grounds for removal from office pursuant to Article XXXII. In the event of such a vote, a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the personnel director for inclusion in such employee’s permanent personnel file and to the mayor.

posted by: Tim Holahan on September 3, 2010 12:24pm

This is troubling. The one real power that the Board of Aldermen possesses is the subpoena power. If an alderman uses that power irresponsibly, the voters and presumably the other Board members have the means to curb him.

A subpoena should be pro forma. What legal discretion is involved? I don’t see a conflict of interest in holding communications with a subpoenaed official and issuing the subpoena to that person.

Out of respect for the City Charter, Mr. Bolden should have instructed a lawyer in his office to execute the subpoenas promptly. Since he failed to do that, he should draft a retroactive contract, sign it, and be done with it.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Bolden is trying to avoid the issuance of subpoenas.

posted by: robn on September 3, 2010 12:49pm

Attorney Bolden is being a procedural obstructionist and even worse… he is deliberately misleading the aldermen. It doesn’t matter if the subpoena preparation has been contracted or not. The lack of a city contract for the service rendered doesn’t make the nature or execution of the service illegal.

Novel Atty Bolden, but crass just the same.

posted by: robn on September 3, 2010 1:00pm

TIM,

I agree with your conclusion…I’d be very surprised if this doesn’t result in the Aldermen filing a grievance with the Statewide Bar Counsel and a presentment for Atty Bolden.

Very embarrassing…very anti-citizen.

posted by: streever on September 3, 2010 2:26pm

It certainly sounds like obstruction. That is what you get though, when you have a competent lawyer who is bogged down in an incompetent city system. I agree with Tim & Robn. The people affected should file a complaint.

posted by: FacChec on September 3, 2010 2:55pm

This whole question of the legality of smart and his committee to subpoena witnesses is admittedly moot in the words of Bolden..

“The question of whether the subpoenas are valid has become moot, because Harris and Newton are planning to attend the hearing, Bolden added “The matter is really done for my purposes. Ms. Harris and Mr. Newton have agreed to appear voluntarily. Everything’s fine.”

However, according to Goldson’s post above referencing Sec. 44 of the Charter…

“committees, departments or director of public works, such presiding officers and such director of public works, shall have the right to apply to the superior court for an order compelling any witness so summoned before them to testify; which courts shall have the power to issue subpoenas”.

The question is further mooted by the fact that the committee has the right to proceed directly to the superior court in New Haven in order to execute subpoenas. The charter makes not provision that the committee need consult with the Corporation Counsel in order to hire it own attorney. In FAC, in such an instance Sec 43 prevails..

Sec. 43. Authority to enter into contracts for expert and professional services.
The president of the board of aldermen may execute all contracts approved by the board for experts and professional consultants where such services are necessary or convenient to the performance by the board of its duties, and such contracts shall be binding upon the city.

Shame on us Bolden.

posted by: Threefifths on September 3, 2010 4:01pm

This shows what happens when you have the crooked two party system

posted by: ingnoranceisbliss on September 3, 2010 5:09pm

Get real. Mike Smart is running (or thinking) about running for Mayor. This is a publicity stunt. The dysfunction of the assessor’s office has been revealed. Now we are on to the witch hunt.

posted by: ROBN on September 3, 2010 5:44pm

IGNORANCEISLISS,

Mayoral aspirations notwithstanding, this story reveals the procedural shenanigans by our executive to disempower the already weak BOA.

posted by: roomforaview on September 4, 2010 8:23am

Getting the Assessment Appeals Board members to testify should have been straightforward. But they wouldn’t testify. Then issuing the subpoenas should have been straightforward. But there was all kinds of political game playing as we all can see. Too bad that Bolden who seems like a very sharp, dignified attorney got so entangled in these obvious shenanigans. It’s so clearly unseemly obstruction. So often the cover-up is as bad or worse than the transgression.

posted by: Darnell on September 4, 2010 9:11am

@Ingnor

“Get real. Mike Smart is running (or thinking) about running for Mayor. This is a publicity stunt. The dysfunction of the assessor’s office has been revealed. Now we are on to the witch hunt.”

Typical, blame the messenger. The facts are that all of the dysfunction has not been revealed. The commissioners who have refused to testify have information that will be valuable to to the BOA and the public. Was anyone denied a hearing and their rights under our charter and state statutes because of the dysfunction? We will not know until we speak with these folks.

John DeStefano is running for mayor, is it a publicity stunt every time he does his job or holds a press conference?

Cut out the personal attacks and let the chairman and the committee do its job

posted by: about time on September 4, 2010 11:11am

Well ignoranceisbliss, whether Smart plans to run for Mayor or not, city officials need to be accountable to the citizenry, NOT to the the mayor and his personal agenda. I’d love to see someone run against the Mayor and if it happens to be Smart, so be it. We could do much, much worse and we certainly have had worse for a long, long time. Smart has the guts to stand up for truth and I don’t see anything wrong with an honest politician and would welcome an honest government in New Haven. Go for it Smart…

posted by: kamb on September 6, 2010 8:37am

DeStefano and his crew are NO GOOD for the City of New Haven! Whay do people vote for him and when will someone decent run against him?

posted by: Anon on September 6, 2010 9:17am

If you go around dropping subpoenas on people who is ever going to want to serve on ANY board or commission?

What is next? Mad at UI or the unions just subpoena them? Don’t like the way that a fellow alder addresses you in a meeting go ahead and subpoena them too.

Words and actions have consequences. BS like this does far greater damage to flight from new haven than any tax increase would.

posted by: Darnell on September 6, 2010 10:13am

@Anon:

have to disagree with you on this one. What is the alternative, just allow them to ignore legitimate requests for information. These folks were asked to attend three hearings, and refused to do so. Only after the subpoenas were served did they agreed to “voluntarily” appear before the committee. These folks serve a very important city function as unelected officials, and are also paid to do so. They should answer to the people.

posted by: cba on September 6, 2010 10:17am

The plain truth about this whole subpoena issue is that Mr. Smart is engaged in political posturing. He is attempting to set himself as some sort of populist mayoral candidate fighting against the mean tax assessor and collector. Public humiliation and grandstanding are not means of effecting change in a department, since it only expends efforts by both sides in a public opinion war with the taxpayers being left to deal with the bills and no real reform

posted by: roomforaview on September 6, 2010 11:41am

The Board of Assessment Appeals was totally dysfunctional. There are so many questions that need to be answered so it can be fixed. The fact that members wouldn’t come to testify on their own free will, presumably on the advice of the Mayor and Bolden, was outrageous. But thankfully, this is a democracy, and subpoenas are a tool to ferret out essential public information when those who serve us refuse to answer our questions.
The Mayor’s actions of late reminds me of Nixon’s response to David Frost “well if the president does it, it’s not against the law.” Our system of checks and balances still has a slight pulse despite the Mayor’s attempts to snuff it out. The question is: why does someone with so much power need to have all of it all of the time?

posted by: Sal Demarro on September 6, 2010 12:00pm

Anon ... When is the last time the aldermen used subpoena power? When all else fails, think outside of the box!
If Michael Smart were to run for mayor, he will have my support.
Sick and tired of the whole bunch and their blind loyalty.
Michael, just do it!

posted by: Tim Holahan on September 6, 2010 3:56pm

The comments by ignoranceisbliss, anon, and cba are off the mark.

I’ve never met Michael Smart, and I have no idea if he intends to run for Mayor. I don’t know much about the tax assessment issue; I’m willing to believe that people have been wronged by irresponsible management of the Assessor’s office, and on the other hand, that the whole thing is being blown out of proportion.

None of that matters in this context. This story is about the Corporation Counsel trying to prevent aldermanic subpoenas from being issued through stalling and obfuscation. It is unacceptable for any member of the city’s executive branch to tamper with or delay the one significant power of the legislature. They may not like the subpoenas, they may not think they are justified, but according to the Charter they must respect them.

If Alderman Smart is using his subpoena power irresponsibly, the voters in his ward and President of the Board have the means to take that power away from him. It should be noted that the people he subpoenaed were not volunteers but city employees. In addition, they had failed to show up at a previous meeting at which they’d been asked to testify. The arguments that these subpoenas were unjustified or likely to discourage volunteer commission participation don’t hold much water.

When Mr. Bolden was hired, the Corporation Counsel’s salary was raised from $110K to $150K with the justification that a top-notch lawyer like him required that much. I’d like to think that a top-notch lawyer wouldn’t play this kind of irresponsible and time-wasting game with the governing principles of the city.

posted by: Tim Holahan on September 6, 2010 5:05pm

Ahem. In that last comment, I was off the mark when I said that the subpoena-ed members of the Board of Assessment Appeals were city employees. The Independent asserts the same thing above (”... the subpoena targets, who are mayoral employees.”).

Jacqueline Harris may be a mayoral employee, but Michael Newton works for H Pearce realtor, according to the New Haven Advocate piece by Betsy Yagla cited (and linked to) in this article.

The Charter doesn’t mention the Board of Assessment Appeals. In It mentions a “board of relief”, primarily for tax relief, not assessment appeal. According to the FAQ on the Tax Assessor’s page of the city’s website (http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/taxcollector/FAQEnglish.asp), the BAA positions are elected, but this is almost certainly not the case. It seems more likely that the BAA members are mayoral appointees, as the Independent and Advocate have both generally stated. The BAA is not, however, listed on the city website’s page on Boards and Commissions (http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Government/Boards_Commissions.asp).

I apologize for my error, but you can see why I made it. This is a mess. This is not how government is supposed to work, even in the days before “transparency” became a buzzword. The Advocate article documents a series of apparently inappropriate assessments and summary denials of appeals with no justification. If Smart is posturing, he has been plenty to posture with. If posturing is required to clean up this mess, that’s unfortunate, but perhaps the way democracy works.

[Note: Mean to write mayoral appointees, not employees. Fixed now.]

posted by: Bill Saunders on September 6, 2010 6:27pm

3/5’s

Do you have a “Crooked 2-Party System” button on your computer keyboard???

posted by: Anon on September 6, 2010 7:12pm

What is wrong with these people?

1. Smart’s committee presumably has a lawyer from Corp. Counsel’s office to advise it. They have every right to use that lawyer without any conflict of interest.

As Walt Whitman said, If I contradict myself, so be it. I am a multitude, Thus are city governments and functions.

2. Subpoenas are EASY to draft. Can’t SMART can send them from the committee, having a marshal serve them? What law or rule states that they must be drafted by the lawyer. It is not the lawyers with the power to subpoena these people, it is the COMMITTEE’S POWER. Jefferson’s pro bono service could have been showing Smart how to write one. Give me a break! And ALL these lawyers already know this.

3. Smart can send them. We know why Bolden is gumming up the works, he’s taken sides. But why is Jefferson? Goldson knows it too, they all know it.

Ex,2,054,512 of New Haven’s finest heap of houey!

posted by: Anon on September 6, 2010 7:33pm

Oops, correction, I meant to write Goldfield, Carl, knows it too. Goldfied is a lawyer. Not that Goldson doesn’t know his stuff, I was just pointing to lawyers who know you probably don’t need a lawyer to draft a simple Subpoena, push come to shove.

Also, how much time did Bolden spend writing that 4 page email instead of getting the subpoenas out? How much was an assistant paid to process it and the indifferent person paid to deliver it? Why are we paying for this?

Also, who said that Smart might be missusing his subpoena powers? Not by a long shot. This is not even borderline. Shouldn’t be in the realm of debate.

A lawyer who appealed before the tax appeal board even said he questioned whether the board was operating legally, that there was no meaningful appeal process.

They don’t show up to explain themselves voluntarily.

This is a sensible, necessary thing to do.

This is not used to harass every committee head. And it won’t put a chill on people wanting to serve on committee because most people don’t believe they will be this unaccountable if they do serve. This is not a minor case.

These kind of controversies are a specialty of the city but they shouldn’t be coming up at all. No well run city engages in this sort of obstructionist stuff. Smart is right to cut through the stuff and try to do sensible, productive government. This is functional, not dysfunctional. Everyone in city hall should follow his lead.

It’s preposterous to allege it is political posturing when it involves an issue of such obvious substance.

Would I vote for someone like that? Of course.

posted by: Tim Holahan on September 6, 2010 10:34pm

Anon:

It seems pretty clear that you’re not the same “Anon” who suggested that people would be fleeing New Haven in fear of unchecked aldermanic subpoena power.

That’s the problem with anonymity—you can be mistaken for anybody.

posted by: Anon on September 7, 2010 9:48am

Hi Tom, yes I am a different “Anon”

I am the Anon who believes we have a right to the honest, dedicated services of public employees, not people who spend hours of their salaried time doing this stuff.

I think it’s incredible that the corp counsel employees that assist the B of A and the committee have been pulled from them because the committee is subpoenaing mayoral appointees. I don’t think they have a right to abandon their duties to the B of A or its committees.

Luckily Jefferson is working pro bono but usually going to outside counsel, which the city does often, is expensive to us.

Lawyers seem to think they are never to engage in service roles but always need to run the show. Where is the client consent in this? Has the B of A agreed to being abandoned by its legal assistants? Where is the commitment to serving the legal needs of the B of A and its committees?

As to anonymity. There was a time some ten years ago and waning since then, when the common wisdom was not to post online with your actual personal information. It was considered really imprudent, fraught with compromises to personal security and so on. It was ingrained in me.

That wisdom is becoming replaced with advice to post one’s name. This shift was triggered by the proliferation of foul language, vulgar attacks, and slander by trolling posters. That isn’t an issue here, and it was clear, you said, that I was not the other Anon. If I had seen the other Anon I would have posted as Anon2 instead. In short, there is no issue here on this story or any of its comments as to anonymity that needs to be addressed.

posted by: Threefifths on September 7, 2010 3:43pm

posted by: Bill Saunders on September 6, 2010 6:27pm
3/5’s

Do you have a “Crooked 2-Party System” button on your computer keyboard???
No.In fact I have both parties on my Toilet Paper that I use.

http://www.futurememories.com/democrat-toilet-paper.html

http://www.prankplace.com/product.aspx?d=Toilet-Paper.FUNNY-TOILET-PAPER:-REPUBLICAN-ELEPHANT&p=29103&c=102

Maybe you should get them.

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form