I hate to pile on--because that's clearly what the San Bernardino Sun is doing to the assessor's office--but I feel I must comment on Wesley Hughes' latest article.

First off, I'm happy to see that Hughes got all of the names and titles right in today's story. Jessie Gill is no where to be found, apparently replaced with Sally Hill, Chief of Assessment Services (which is her real name).

The good parts of the story stop there. In my response yesterday, I mentioned the appeals process. You see, I assumed that the discussions with the assessor's office had already been completed without a positive result for the Community of Christ. In that case, the appeals process should have been pursued. However, according to this story, the office adjusted the assessment of it's own accord, by finding a way to assess the property that would be more beneficial to the taxpayer.

Basically, here's what they sorted out: Originally, they calculated that 54% of the property was used for church purposes, since when calculated based on square feet, 54% of the property was in the form of buildings, and 46% was in the form of a dirt lot. This resulted in 46% being taxable. The assessment was modified to view the property based on the distribution of value. Since 99% of the property's value was in the building, and only 1% of the property's value was in the dirt lot, 99% could be considered exempt from taxation.

One might argue--why doesn't the assessor's office always assess properties based on distribution of value, rather than the distribution of area (square feet)? The issue there is that that wouldn't always be fully beneficial to the taxpayer. What if there were a church built on the coast, with part of its undeveloped land overlooking the ocean? If 95% of the church's property (by square feet) was developed into religious buildings, the remaining 5% of prized coastal property could equate to a much larger percentage of the value than just 5%. In that case, it would be better for that church to have the assessment be based on square feet.

Of course, this is a hypothetical example. I have no doubt that the trained appraisers at any assessor's office have better ones. But I think my point is clear.

What likely happened here is that an appraiser was sent out into the field, and determined the 54%/46% numbers, and then plugged those into the system. Considering the hundreds of thousands of parcels in the county, automation is key. 54% was submitted as the amount of the property eligible for exemption, likely automatically, which left 46% taxable. Clearly (based on the result) there was a way to assess the property that was better for the taxpayer.

When the senior operations staff of the assessor's office were made aware of the situation, it was quickly rectified. What more does Hughes want from the office?

Of course, there are a few other issues with his story . . . For one, in the third paragraph of today's story, he writes the following:

I could hear the smile radiating in Pastor Kathy Hughes' voice in a message she left for me Thursday.

The Big Bad Wolf aka the Assessor's Office would not be blowing the house down for her Community of Christ church in Hesperia.

She had been informed minutes earlier that the church and its less-than-an-acre site had been ruled 99 percent exempt from property taxes.

Actually, I already had an inkling. I met with four supervisors at the Assessor's Office the day before [Wednesday]. Although I didn't agree completely with the way the appraisers reached their conclusion, it was vastly better for the tiny church - at least for now.

So it sounds like Mr. Hughes knew about this result on Wednesday. His first, highly critical (and, in multiple cases, factually inaccurate) story was written Wednesday, and published Thursday. Is Hughes saying that he published his initial story, already knowing that the situation had been resolved in a way that would leave Pastor Hughes with a "radiating smile?" Or is this another slip-up, or lack of clarity in his writing?

Later in the story, Hughes writes:

Oops, that didn't stand up under closer scrutiny (from the press).

I like how Mr. Hughes takes credit for resolving this situation. While his story and involvement certainly angered many assessor's office staff, it had little to do with the result. The professional appraisal and assessment staffs are incredibly approachable--even the, ahem, "big shots" in the department. In addition, you can say what you will about the executive staff in the assessor's office, but that staff does include two taxpayer advocates, with a dedicated toll-free number (877-885-7654) and email submission form.

A taxpayer can call and ask to speak with the Chief Appraiser, or the Chief of Assessment Services, and will, almost certainly be transferred directly to that person. If the taxpayer doesn't know who to speak with, he or she can simply ask for a taxpayer advocate, both of whom would know who to contact in this situation, or in any situation.

Hughes goes on to state the following:

I suggested that non-threatening communications with taxpayers before trouble erupts might be a good thing. / They insisted they didn't have time or the people for that task.

What does he want from them? The assessment was completed, likely automatically, then submitted to the Treasurer-Tax Collector, who mailed the tax bill. When the tax bill was received and called into question, the assessor's office modified the assessment, which reduced the tax bill.

Does Wesley Hughes want a county staff member sent out to each property to deliver the first tax bill, to show proper compassion? I'm not sure what else would satisfy Hughes. I am ignoring his suggestion to place all communication officers in a single office, in order to communicate county information in a "polite, non-confrontational way." It wouldn't work, for a number of reasons--that hypothetical office's employees wouldn't have detailed knowledge of each department, for one.

A lot of legitimate criticism has been levied at the assessor's office over the past few months. This is one of the cases where the criticism was completely unwarranted.

Write SB Pietas at sbpietas@yahoo.com.