Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 1 · column 2 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
But according to the State Department of Taxation and judging by the results in the tax book, the Equalization Board has played by the rules. Forberg agreed that some of the rules may need amending. “But if you’re dissatisfied, the place to change them is in Richmond," he advised.
In addition, he acknowledged that at least one rule has been bent. He emphasized, however, that the mistake was both inadvertant and correctable.
The error came on the day that the equalization process officially began and was the primary motivation behind the Equalization Board's request for a meeting with the supervisors. “We were informed last Friday that we were acting illegally, that our appointments were illegal and rather than continue our illegal activities in broad daylight...we quit right there," announced chairman Herbert Barksdale. "If you want us to dissolve, we will. But if you want us to continue, we want to work in peace."
The question of legality centers on the timing of the appointments made by Judge Shore Robertson. The Virginia Code specifies that terms of Equalization Board members expire on December 31 of the year in which the appoints are made. Rappahannock’s Board of Equalization was scheduled to start work after January 1, 1982, with appointments to run until December 31st of that year. But members of the board were named by Judge Robertson and sworn into office in December, 1981, so under the law, their terms expired at the end of that same month although they didn't even begin meeting until January, 1982.
"The question is intent," Forberg maintained,” The intent was to have the work done in 1982,” he said, adding that the issue of whether or not the Equalization Board has authority must be answered by the court.
Robertson addressed that issue April 28th, entering a nunc pro tunc order which reaffirms the appointments of the Equalization Board members and validates the work they have done to date.
Preferential Treatment?
"There's another question that should be cleared up," Barksdale noted at the special meeting. “This has broken loose and gotten all over the county...There have been a lot of accusations that members of the Board of Equalization lowered the value of their own property and raised everybody elses.
87.7%