Negative Story on Assessor's Office Doesn't Mention Aleman or Postmus
Posted by: SB Pietas | 08/07/2008 7:07 AM
Here's a shocker: The San Bernardino Sun has a negative story posted on the assessor's office--and it doesn't mention or even involve Assessor Bill Postmus or former Assistant Assessor Adam Aleman.
It seems that a High Desert church used to think it was exempt from taxation. This year, the assessor's office decided that only 54% of the site was used for church purposes, making the rest taxable. The church was given a $12k tax bill. Unfortunate, but it happens. The church can go through various appeals processes to get their bill reduced, which they are apparently doing.
The real story, of course, is the response from the assessor's office. Somehow, Wesley Hughes, the story's author, didn't bother asking around the Sun's newsroom to determine the appropriate person to contact at the assessor's office. He didn't think to check with Metro Editor George Watson, or Staff Writer Lauren McSherry, who have both covered assessor's office issues in-depth and who would know to call Communications Officer Ted Lehrer.
So, apparently, he calls a secondary number for the assessor's office, perhaps for a district office or a specific department. Predictably, the office specialist didn't know how to transfer him to Lehrer.
Let's make a comparison. If a reporter wished to do a story on the County's negotiations with SBPEA, the county employees' union, and wanted to speak with a County spokesperson, it would not do him much good to call the main number for the Human Resources department. The reporter would likely just get an office specialist who would have no idea how to transfer a call to David Wert.
The first problem with this article is that Wesley Hughes just doesn't know what he's doing. Ted Lehrer's name has been in countless Sun stories over the past few months. Did Hughes even read them? Or was just Hughes "playing dumb," trying to make a story out of his difficulty reaching a spokesperson?
Eventually he does reach Lehrer, who brings on Chief Appraiser Dan Harp, and Jessie Gill (the property's appraiser, perhaps?). Hughes makes a big deal about Lehrer starting the conversation with "We are not all evil." Now, I realize that Hughes must be new to working with the assessor's office, but even he should know that the department has had a lot of bad press lately. Lehrer was just trying to lighten the mood with a small joke. What's Hughes' problem there?
Hughes wasn't calling about a corruption issue--that's what Lehrer meant by "evil." He calling about a disagreement over a specific appraisal. While disagreements occur, this wasn't a case of Bill Postmus or Adam Aleman taking advantage of the system--or of any county employee breaking the law. This was a case of a professional disagreement over the application of an exemption. While the appraiser may have made an error, which will certainly be determined through the appeals process, I don't see how anyone could consider this whole situation to be "evil."
Then Hughes writes about how Dan Harp didn't want to discuss his background and experience. Dan Harp is not a political appointee (although he was promoted under Bill Postmus assessorship). If this was an Adam Aleman or a Jim Erwin, brought in from outside the assessor's office, perhaps the question would be a bit more legitimate. But Dan Harp is a longtime assessor's office employee, and that fact, along with his title of Chief Appraiser, ought to have been enough to satisfy Hughes.
To make another comparison, if a reporter were asking for details on a criminal case from a Deputy District Attorney, would he really ask for the prosecutor's background and experience? I think that reporter would just focus on the case, not on the prosecuting attorney's experience. The fact that he is a Deputy District Attorney ought to be enough.
That said, anyone with a political mind who was asked that question would have just answered the question, rather than getting defensive. A political type would have known that any reluctance to answer such a question could be viewed negatively--as this reporter did. So while I argue that the question didn't need to be asked, the way in which it was answered proves that Dan Harp isn't a political appointee, and is, therefore, likely to be highly qualified.
How does one gain a high-level position in government service? By being elected (Bill Postmus), by being appointed (Adam Aleman and Jim Erwin), or by working up through the ranks (Harlow Cameron, Dan Harp, Sally Hill). Harp, in answering the question how he does, proves that he is not a political appointee. Even if the question was asked, the way in which it was answered shouldn't have been called to task in the way it was.
Even Hughes admits this, though he doesn't seem to grasp it fully. He says Harp acted "Like a nonswimmer grabbing for an inner tube." In other words, he acted like someone who didn't know what he was doing (talking to the media) trying to survive the new experience.
Hughes seems to be the one who needs an inner tube. A shame he doesn't realize it.
Write SB Pietas at sbpietas@yahoo.com.
It seems that a High Desert church used to think it was exempt from taxation. This year, the assessor's office decided that only 54% of the site was used for church purposes, making the rest taxable. The church was given a $12k tax bill. Unfortunate, but it happens. The church can go through various appeals processes to get their bill reduced, which they are apparently doing.
The real story, of course, is the response from the assessor's office. Somehow, Wesley Hughes, the story's author, didn't bother asking around the Sun's newsroom to determine the appropriate person to contact at the assessor's office. He didn't think to check with Metro Editor George Watson, or Staff Writer Lauren McSherry, who have both covered assessor's office issues in-depth and who would know to call Communications Officer Ted Lehrer.
So, apparently, he calls a secondary number for the assessor's office, perhaps for a district office or a specific department. Predictably, the office specialist didn't know how to transfer him to Lehrer.
Let's make a comparison. If a reporter wished to do a story on the County's negotiations with SBPEA, the county employees' union, and wanted to speak with a County spokesperson, it would not do him much good to call the main number for the Human Resources department. The reporter would likely just get an office specialist who would have no idea how to transfer a call to David Wert.
The first problem with this article is that Wesley Hughes just doesn't know what he's doing. Ted Lehrer's name has been in countless Sun stories over the past few months. Did Hughes even read them? Or was just Hughes "playing dumb," trying to make a story out of his difficulty reaching a spokesperson?
Eventually he does reach Lehrer, who brings on Chief Appraiser Dan Harp, and Jessie Gill (the property's appraiser, perhaps?). Hughes makes a big deal about Lehrer starting the conversation with "We are not all evil." Now, I realize that Hughes must be new to working with the assessor's office, but even he should know that the department has had a lot of bad press lately. Lehrer was just trying to lighten the mood with a small joke. What's Hughes' problem there?
Hughes wasn't calling about a corruption issue--that's what Lehrer meant by "evil." He calling about a disagreement over a specific appraisal. While disagreements occur, this wasn't a case of Bill Postmus or Adam Aleman taking advantage of the system--or of any county employee breaking the law. This was a case of a professional disagreement over the application of an exemption. While the appraiser may have made an error, which will certainly be determined through the appeals process, I don't see how anyone could consider this whole situation to be "evil."
Then Hughes writes about how Dan Harp didn't want to discuss his background and experience. Dan Harp is not a political appointee (although he was promoted under Bill Postmus assessorship). If this was an Adam Aleman or a Jim Erwin, brought in from outside the assessor's office, perhaps the question would be a bit more legitimate. But Dan Harp is a longtime assessor's office employee, and that fact, along with his title of Chief Appraiser, ought to have been enough to satisfy Hughes.
To make another comparison, if a reporter were asking for details on a criminal case from a Deputy District Attorney, would he really ask for the prosecutor's background and experience? I think that reporter would just focus on the case, not on the prosecuting attorney's experience. The fact that he is a Deputy District Attorney ought to be enough.
That said, anyone with a political mind who was asked that question would have just answered the question, rather than getting defensive. A political type would have known that any reluctance to answer such a question could be viewed negatively--as this reporter did. So while I argue that the question didn't need to be asked, the way in which it was answered proves that Dan Harp isn't a political appointee, and is, therefore, likely to be highly qualified.
How does one gain a high-level position in government service? By being elected (Bill Postmus), by being appointed (Adam Aleman and Jim Erwin), or by working up through the ranks (Harlow Cameron, Dan Harp, Sally Hill). Harp, in answering the question how he does, proves that he is not a political appointee. Even if the question was asked, the way in which it was answered shouldn't have been called to task in the way it was.
Even Hughes admits this, though he doesn't seem to grasp it fully. He says Harp acted "Like a nonswimmer grabbing for an inner tube." In other words, he acted like someone who didn't know what he was doing (talking to the media) trying to survive the new experience.
Hughes seems to be the one who needs an inner tube. A shame he doesn't realize it.
Write SB Pietas at sbpietas@yahoo.com.
Here's an update: Hughes mentions Jessie Gill as being on the conference call, along with Ted Lehrer and Dan Harp.
No one named Jessie Gill works for the assessor's office. Hughes meant to write "Sally Hill," Chief of Assessment Services.
This is one more example of how Mr. Hughes didn't properly investigate this story, or portray it in an appropriate light.
Add to that, the story is factually inaccurate in many, many ways. For instance, the assessor's office does not send out tax bills, does not make recommendations to seize property, and certainly doesn't seize property on its own.