Whether an assessor may file an appeal of an assessment on his or her own property? Whether an assessor may advocate for a taxpayer at an assessment appeal hearing during non - work hours?

             In the limited regard of real property in which an employee resides, the Ethics Code would not be violated if the employee represents himself or herself in the Land Use Department review process, as long as the employee uses no Department resources to advance that appeal. However, both the Ethics Code and Department policy prohibit any Land Use employee from representing or assisting any other person during any procedure before that Department, including the assessment review process.

             The requester is an assessor in the Land Use Department who wants to represent a family member in an assessment appeal. Department policy prohibits such representation.

 

            The Ethics Code prohibits County employees from representing another’s interest before the County Department with which the employee is associated by employment or appointment. In addition, the Code also prohibits County employees from engaging in conduct which undermines the public confidence in the impartiality of the employee’s department.

 

 

            The employee’s Department has a policy which appears to embody the Ethics Code provisions stated above. That policy prohibits an employee from representing any taxpayer before the Board of Assessment Review and specifically precludes use of County resources to advance such an appeal and also prohibits the employee from attending a hearing held during non-work hours in order to assist a taxpayer.

 

 

            In Advisory Opinion 05-02, the Commission discussed the limited exception to the Section 2.03.103B1 provision when the employee’s personal residence is involved:

 

However, as the Commission recognized in its earlier opinions, in the very fundamental area of physical shelter, the public interest must be moderated to permit the employee or official, like any other citizen, to repair, replace or improve his home. That moderation is delineated by strict safeguards which must be carefully implemented and followed by the employee. Thus, in the limited circumstance of repairs or construction on a personal residence, a Land Use employee may represent himself before his department as a general contractor provided his department has or establishes a procedure ensuring the following three conditions: 1) that approvals of his applications are issued only on the personal authority of an employee of higher rank than the requesting employee; 2) that no subordinate, peer, or agent or anyone in the employee's chain of supervision discusses any matters related to the construction with him other than those topics discussed with any other County resident in the personal role of general contractor; and 3) that during the duration of the project, in this case estimated to be five years, the requesting employee recuses himself from the planning, discussion or implementation of any proposed regulations or ordinances which could affect his conduct as a general contractor on this particular project.

 

             In Advisory Opinion 01-06, the Commission discussed the application of an even more broad prohibition on County Officials which precludes an official’s representation of a private interest before any department of County government:

 

In addition, this Section not only prohibits the County official from personally appearing before a particular County board, department, agency or County Council, but also prohibits the County official from assisting . . . in preparation of the matter, if it is a matter to go before the County, even if another individual actually presents it to the County.

 

 

             The rationale underlying the Code is ably stated in the Department policy. "It will confuse the Board [of Assessment Review] and will cast the County in an unfavorable light to have a County assessor attempt to critique and point out flaws in another County assessor's work."

             In the limited regard of real property in which an employee resides, the Ethics Code would not be violated if the employee represents himself or herself in the Land Use Department review process, as long as the employee uses no Department resources to advance that appeal. However, both the Ethics Code and Department policy prohibit any Land Use employee from representing or assisting any other person during any procedure before that Department, including the assessment review process.

 

            In issuing this Advisory Opinion, the Ethics Commission is applying the New Castle County Code of Ethics, which establishes the minimum level of ethical conduct required of County officials and employees.

 

 

______________________

Thomas P. Collins, Chairperson

 

Decision: Unanimous