State assessors following the law
To the editor:
It was with shock and concern that I read Steven Miller's Nov. 29 commentary on the subject of property tax and assessment officers ("Defrauded by the state?"). I am writing to clear up some of the serious misrepresentation of facts.
It appears to me that someone has not done his homework. To suggest that assessors have no concise rules or regulations they must follow is nothing but balderdash. Hence, I suggest that Mr. Miller may want to spend some time reading the law and regulations governing the assessment process. Albeit, this may be a tough and complicated read, it is important for anyone who wishes to offer a valid, knowledgeable opinion on this subject.
Assessors in the state of Nevada are required to follow the Nevada Revised Statutes and subsequent regulations governing the assessment process. If they do not, some serious sanctions await them. The law provides many remedies to ensure fair and equitable treatment for our taxpayers and this is the most important part of assessment as required by Article 10, Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution. This clause is particularly important to me because I use it any time I detect any oversight in the system.
To say that assessors somehow conspire with other government officials for the purpose of secretly producing whatever revenue is desired is about as over the top as you can get in the conspiracy theory department. On what basis or from what evidence did Mr. Miller make this accusation? I assure you that if anyone came to me and suggested that I somehow manipulate the assessment process in any way, that person may likely find himself being prosecuted, and that includes government officials. I consider the oath I took to uphold the laws of our state as a serious responsibility.
Additionally, if the assessors were so concerned about generating money "at will" for their respective counties, why didn't they come out en masse to object to my proposal in 2004 to cap the property taxes? If I had not been an elected official who answers to the public, do you think I would have been allowed to be so outspoken about my concerns for our taxpaying public?
Regarding the meeting between the assessors and the state Board of Equalization, the assessors did not refuse to meet. We simply asked for the meeting to be postponed because of our workload, which gets even worse in January when our respective County Boards of Equalization convene.
Not only do we welcome the opportunity to meet with and discuss our assessment practices with the state Board of Equalization, we also want to have present at the meetings those who govern and regulate our practices. Is there something wrong with bringing transparency to the table, or is there a hidden agenda against this as well?
What occurred in Washoe County relative to the legal dispute is unfortunate, but do you really want to throw out the whole system because of that one situation? Be careful what you ask or suggest because it just might happen, and then we could all suffer from the results of ignorance and political/personal agendas that superseded doing the right thing.
I believe that issues should be brought to the fore through open and honest discourse. I hope the assessors will be given an unbiased opportunity to share our side of the story without refractory insertions that are designed to be destructive and inflammatory. It would be my pleasure to work toward a fact-based, solution-oriented outcome relative to this subject. Senseless character assassination and false rhetoric do nothing more than paralyze what could be very constructive dialogue.
We are not the enemy. We want only to follow the law and serve the public with the equality and respect they deserve.
M.W. SCHOFIELD
LAS VEGAS
The writer is Clark County assessor.
