[Vision2020] RE: why the BOE meeting time (Donovan Arnold)

[Mark Solomon]

The constraining factor here is time: If the BOE had met and was 
prepared to make a final decision that could adversely effect CCC on 
Tuesday, they would have then had to send notice, give the required 
five day lead time, and still somehow make a final decision by 
Monday. Possible, but unlikely given the weekend and whether the five 
days can include non-working days (not sure of the case law in this 
instance). While this doesn't excuse their bungling the notice 
requirements from the outset, it does make for a process within the 
confines of the law.

Mark
*****

Mark, they said that at the meeting. It was not a mystery to anyone I 
don't think.

What is a mystery is why they think anyone else has a say in the 
appeal of someone else. They are not suing anybody. The only reason 
the property owners need to be contacted is if the the taxes are 
changed, not for considering it. Could you imagine if every property 
owner in Latah had a right to be notified individually become 
considering the valuation of their property?

The law is clear on this one and the board made the wrong decision.

Donovan J Arnold

>From: Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] why the BOE meeting time
>Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 12:54:09 -0700
>
>Visionaries,
>
>There has been question as to why the BOE is meeting at such an 
>unlikely time (Friday at 6pm). Here's the reason (aside from the 
>already well-posted reasons as to why they should have met at the 
>previously scheduled time):
>
>From Idaho Code 63-501:
>
>"The board of equalization must complete such business and adjourn 
>as a board of equalization on the second Monday of July...."
>
Mark Solomon