At 1 PM today, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors will convene for a special meeting to discuss the possible removal of County Assessor Bill Postmus. While Assessor Postmus has been asked to resign by numerous media publications and members of the public over the past few months, little has been done by the Board of Supervisors to cause his office to be vacant. This is not a result of apathy. Until now, there was little legal justification for the Board of Supervisors to remove Assessor Postmus. Unfortunately, making bad decisions is not proper cause to remove an elected official from office.

Last week, District Attorney investigators executed a search on the residence of Assessor Postmus and discovered evidence of narcotics violations. He was arrested and booked on one felony and one misdemeanor. This has prompted a renewed interest in the Assessor's Office situation.

It is clear that the County of San Bernardino would be best served by a new assessor. How to achieve that end is less clear, but there are a few options.

Click "Read More" to read more.

Sharon Gilbert at iepolitics.com suggested that the Board of Supervisors may attempt to have Assessor Postmus' appraiser's certificate revoked by the State Board of Equalization. County Assessors are required (GC 24002.5) to hold a valid appraiser's certificate to execute the powers and duties of the office.

Upon my review of the relevant sections of code, there appears to be only one justification for the revocation of an appraiser's certificate: A failure to complete 24 hours of yearly instruction in property appraisal (R&T 671).

If Assessor Postmus has not completed his 24 hours of instruction for this year, he could face revocation of his appraiser's certificate and, therefore, forfeiture of office. While I have no reason to suspect that he hasn't completed his training, I can only say that in the past year he has taken a twelve week medical leave of absence, likely battled a drug addiction, and been arrested. It is conceivable that sitting through twenty-four hours of instruction in property taxation could have fallen through the cracks.

Assessor Postmus last released information on his participation in appraiser's training in August 2007. If he has not yet completed additional training he would be in violation of R&T 671 and, therefore, GC 24002.5. He is allowed to complete training early, but I doubt he would have completed twenty-four hours of additional training in 2007.

The California State Board of Equalization has established rules to govern the revocation of an appraiser's certificate in this situation, but they are rather lenient. Perhaps it wouldn't need to go that far.

San Bernardino County is the only county in California to allow the Board of Supervisors to remove another county elected official from office. You can read my previous post on that here.

In July, County Counsel Ruth Stringer believed that sufficient "cause" (as defined in County Code section 13.0404(c)) had not yet been shown publicly.

However, the third definition of "cause"--"Violation of any law related to the performance of the officer's duties"--may apply under the circumstances described above.

If Assessor Postmus has not completed his training for this year, he is in violation of R&T Section 671 and Government Code Section 24002.5--Laws certainly relating to his duties as a county officer. As such, it would seem that he is subject to removal by the County Board of Supervisors. Do note that only "violation" is specified, not conviction. As the BOS would be acting in a quasi-judicial manner in any official attempt to remove Assessor Postmus from office, it may be left to the Board to determine if a violation exists. I'll leave that to County Counsel and others to decide.

From another direction, if Assessor Postmus is convicted (GC 1770(h)) or pleads guilty (GC 1770.2) to a felony--he was arrested and booked on one felony and one misdemeanor last week--he will no longer be the Assessor of San Bernardino County. Or, if he is committed to a hospital as a "drug addict" by a court, the Office of County Assessor will also be made vacant (GC 1770(l)). How common such commitment is, I don't know.

And, of course, there is also the matter of GC 3001, previously discussed here, which makes it a crime for a county officer to be intoxicated in a way that conflicts with his official duties. The conviction of a county officer under Section 3001 results in forfeiture of office, but is only a misdemeanor.

Or, of course, I could be completely wrong. The BOS may have information that I do not. Regardless, it seems highly unlikely now that Assessor Postmus will serve out his term.

Write SB Pietas at sbpietas@yahoo.com.