[Vision2020] BOE Hearing.

[DonaldH675 at aol.com]

Visionaries,
Saundra and I thank all of you who were able to come to the BOE meeting 
today. Those of you who were there know that we were not allowed to present our 
complaint based on advice given the BOE counsel, Mr. Doug Whitney.  Indeed, we 
were not allowed to speak at all.  The hearing is continued until Friday night, 
6:00 in Room 2-B, Latah County Courthouse.  (The basement conference room 
directly across from the commissioners offices).  If you have the time, I urge you 
to come. The following statement was mailed to the BOE early this morning 
prior to the hearing.  As usual, I will share all public communication between 
the country officials and myself.  I can not state strongly enough, that we 
object vigorously that the hearing did not proceed as scheduled.  Following the 
closing of the hearing some questions were directed to BOE members from the 
audience.  In particular, I was struck by Mr. Whitney's response to a question 
from the audience.  When asked if he could explain a procedural issue his 
response was to direct the woman to a code number, and then added "you probably 
couldn't understand it anyway."  I hasten to add, Mr. Fiscus, and the BOE members 
have been courteous, helpful, and professional at all times, and I am confident 
that we will receive a fair hearing.  Nonetheless, Mr. Whitney made Saundra's 
and my point far more capably than we ever could.  How are two lay persons 
going to prevail when they are placed in the position of arguing law to lawyers? 
 
Our statement was placed on record Friday morning when I emailed it in.  
Saundra read the statement following the BOE meeting.  
Hope to see lots of you Friday night. 
Rose Huskey.

Gentlemen:
If the July 6th hearing is continued we will ask to read this statement into 
the record.  We are sending it to you so that you will be aware of what we 
intend to say.  We hope that if will encourage you to go forward with the hearing 
as originally planned.
Respectfully,
Rosemary Huskey and Saundra Lund

Statement for the Record
On June 22, 2004 we filed an application of appeal to the BOE for 
reconsideration of the property tax exemptions granted to Anselm House and New St. 
Andrews in May 2004.  We were assured that this action is between petitioners and 
the BOE. 

Christ Church is not a party to the appeal and consequently has no standing 
in our petition.  The failure of the county to provide official notification to 
a Christ Church representative five days prior to the hearing (if they did 
fail to do so) does not affect our right to proceed as scheduled.  We disagree 
that there are, in fact, any legal grounds to prevent the hearing from 
proceeding as scheduled.

To date, (July 5th, 2004) we have not been officially notified that the July 
6th hearing will be continued on the advice of BOE counsel,  Mr. Doug Whitney. 
 Indeed, if we had not stopped by to observe a Board of Equalization hearing 
on Friday, July 2nd, and were subsequently directed to Mr. Whitney's office 
for further information regarding our hearing, we would be unaware that he 
intended to recommend a continuance.  Mr. Whitney characterized this hearing as 
adversarial.  On what legal ground does he declare this hearing to be 
adversarial?  It is a citizen's right to appeal a property tax exemption.  How can it be 
adversarial when the BOE has yet to hear and act on our petition?  We do not 
view this hearing as adversarial.  We are challenging the perviously granted 
exemption in order to provide the BOE with relevant information that may or may 
not impact their May 2004 decision.

If the BOE allows this proceeding to be structured and conducted as an 
adversarial hearing petitioners will be denied equal protection under the law.  A 
BOE hearing that requires petitioners to present a petition through counsel (if 
they hope to prevail) deprives them of their due process rights under the 14th 
amendment of the Constitution, and the concomitant provisions of the Idaho 
constitution.  Without counsel, petitioners (who are lay people) will not have a 
meaningful opportunity to be heard.

It is no small challenge to obtain counsel on the Friday afternoon preceding 
the 4th of July holiday.  Moreover, the obvious power inequity when lay people 
are placed in the position of arguing the law against two opposing attorneys 
(assuming that Mr. Whitney intends to support the status quo) is too great a 
hurdle for ordinary citizens to leap.  Lay people, regardless of the merit of 
their petition, are ill equipped to argue the law against two practicing 
attorneys.

We oppose on principle the notion that an appearance before the BOE 
necessitates an attorney for a petitioner to prevail.  An adversarial hearing presumes 
that the petitioner must enjoy the privilege of wealth to be confident that 
her position will be effectively argued.  It is our very deep conviction that it 
is neither the purpose nor the intent of the BOE to reward a petitioner if 
she can pay for counsel or penalize a petitioner if she can not.  We affirm that 
whether a petitioner is affluent or poor, the BOE has a duty to preserve a 
climate of equity.

We acknowledge the authority of the Latah County Board of Equalization, 
acting under the advice of counsel, to continue the BOE hearing scheduled for July 
6, 2004 concerning Anselm House and New St. Andrews.  However, we urge the BOE 
to give full consideration to our arguments and proceed as scheduled with 
these hearings.

Respectfully,
Rosemary Huskey and Saundra Lund.




"One cannot level one's moral lance at every evil in the universe. There are 
just too many of them. But you can do something, and the difference between 
doing something and doing nothing is everything." 

- Daniel Berrigan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040706/e54356a3/attachment.htm