1 BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2 450 N STREET 3 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 8 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT 9 FEBRUARY 27, 2018 10 11 12 ITEM M 13 BOARD MEMBER REQUESTED MATTERS 14 M1 15 ESTABLISH CONSTITUTIONAL AND RELATED STATUTORY 16 MATTERS AS A STANDING AGENDA ITEM 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REPORTED BY: Jillian M. Sumner 28 CSR NO. 13619 1 1 P R E S E N T 2 3 For the Board Equalization: Honorable Diane L. Harkey 4 Chairwoman 5 Honorable Fiona Ma CPA 6 Honorable Jerome Horton 7 Third District 8 Honorable Diane L. Harkey Fourth District 9 Yvette Stowers 10 Appearing for Betty T. Yee, State Controller 11 (per Government Code Section 7.9) 12 Joann Richmond 13 Chief Board Proceedings 14 Division 15 16 For Board of Equalization Staff: Henry Nanjo 17 Chief Counsel 18 Chuck Leonhardt President 19 California Assessor's Association 20 Marc Aprea 21 Owner Aprea and Micheli Firm 22 23 24 ---oOo--- 25 26 27 28 2 1 450 N STREET 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 FEBRUARY 27, 2018 4 ---oOo--- 5 MS. RICHMOND: Our next item is Item M, 6 Board Member Requested Matters; Item M1 is to 7 Establish Constitutional and Related Statutory 8 Matters as a Standing Agenda Item. 9 And we do have speakers for this matter. 10 MS. HARKEY: Thank -- 11 MS. MA: Can someone explain what it is 12 first? 13 MS. HARKEY: Um, Member Horton. 14 MS. RICHMOND: This is Mr. Horton's item. 15 MR. HORTON: Thank you, Madam Chair. 16 Traditionally and historically, the Board 17 has been in a position to hear matters of concern 18 from the constituency well before -- as Member Harkey 19 indicated -- they mushroom. 20 The other problem that has occurred is that 21 the public lacks the ability to hear from the Board 22 as a collective body as to what our views are, what 23 our concerns are collectively, because of the notion 24 of ex parte communication and so forth. 25 But even when ex parte communication was in 26 play, the only way that you could address the 27 collective body was in a public venue. And so I 28 believe that the -- the lack of these forms of 3 1 communication limits the level of public engagement 2 in the discussion, public awareness in the 3 discussion, limits transparency in the process, as 4 well as the overall accountability to the Board as a 5 body. 6 So what the recommendation is, is to say 7 when these issues or topics come up, that the Board 8 Members should be in a position to hear collectively 9 from the public as to what their concerns are, as 10 well as from the quote, unquote "interested parties," 11 as well as from staff. We have no mechanism to 12 accomplish that currently. And so the desire is 13 to -- to have staff develop some process that allows 14 us to do that. 15 Our Chief Counsel spoke to this as one of 16 the means in which to accomplish that objective and 17 to address the concerns about -- of Members, about 18 being able to participate more actively, more 19 engaging in the process to the concerns expressed by 20 CalTax in addressing some of their concerns, letter 21 to assessors in bringing about a level of uniformity 22 and how the various assessors are assessing property 23 tax in the decisions and recommendations that are 24 going forward. 25 So really it's just -- the goal here is to 26 increase transparency, increase public awareness and 27 participation in the process. And that's about it, 28 if that helps. 4 1 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 2 Member Ma. 3 No? Okay. 4 All right. We have two speakers it appears. 5 We have Mr. Chuck Leonhardt, President of the 6 California Assessors' Association, if you would come 7 forward. And Marc Aprea, Principal at Aprea Micheli, 8 California Alliance of Taxpayer Advocates. 9 Mr. Leonhardt, if you wouldn't mind 10 beginning. 11 MR. LEONHARDT: Okay. Thank you for your 12 time. 13 I think from my perspective as an individual 14 assessor, and I believe assessors in the Association 15 appreciate the need for you to receive public input. 16 And I think this matter creates that door, which was 17 I think what Mr. Horton's intent is. 18 I think the concern that I have, if 19 anything, is just that it be implemented in such a 20 way that your staff is still involved in the process, 21 that we're following things like manuals that we have 22 for interested parties meetings, and those things 23 that ensure that issues get fully vetted before 24 decisions are made. 25 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 26 Let's -- let's have Mr. Aprea, and then I'll 27 open it up to conversation. 28 MR. APREA: Madam Chair, Members of the 5 1 Committee, for the record, I'm Mark Aprea with the 2 firm of Aprea and Micheli here on behalf of our 3 client, the California Alliance of Taxpayer 4 Advocates. It's a statewide trade association 5 representing property tax agents. 6 And we want to express our support for Board 7 Member Horton's motion. It has been 18 months since 8 we first wrote to you. It has been 6 months since 9 this Board unanimously directed staff to initiate an 10 expedited interested parties process to address the 11 issues that CATA has raised regarding property tax 12 issues, property assessment processes with the Board 13 of Equalization. 14 The one -- there was one meeting in that 15 six-month period of time. It was on December the 16 18th. And at that meeting staff indicated that we 17 would have a report sometime in February and a 18 meeting -- follow-up meeting in March. 19 Albeit, it was not an interested parties 20 meeting, it was more of an informal gathering. Not 21 the interested parties process that you had directed. 22 So CATA is prepared now, as it was in 23 September of 2016 and all times subsequent, to work 24 with representatives of California Assessors' 25 Association, the California county-elected officials 26 and clerks, the Board of Equalization staff and BOE 27 Members to address the issues that we've raised with 28 you regarding the -- the equalization over the 6 1 uniformity of assessment appeals and assessment 2 appeals processes. 3 In fact, within the last few weeks, CATA has 4 developed a standards committee. Mr. Peter Michaels 5 is a member of that standards committee who will help 6 us in developing not only our policy, but providing 7 some assistance with regard to our -- our advocacy. 8 The bottom line is that given in six months, 9 we have only had one meeting. By what standard is 10 that an expedited process? We, therefore, must ask 11 the Board respectfully that you set a schedule for 12 this process to move forward, and that you require 13 that this matter be brought before you to resolve 14 these issues for a vote before the end of this 15 calendar year. 16 I am concerned that failing to -- failing -- 17 the Board failing to set the schedule and a deadline, 18 that we will be here a year from now with very little 19 progress to show. And I think that the past is a 20 prolog to the future unless you all choose to 21 intervene. 22 And so it is with that that I, again, 23 respectfully request that this Board set the 24 schedule, and that you ask that these matters be 25 brought to you for your decision before the end of 26 this calendar year. 27 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 28 I -- yeah. I would just like to say we had 7 1 a very detailed list, and it shouldn't have been that 2 complex. And I think we even had some solutions. 3 And I know there might be a little dissension among 4 the assessors, but I didn't think there was that much 5 on some of the issues. 6 Everybody seemed to agree. LA was leading 7 the charge with the letter that was uniformed. There 8 were other issues bringing up. And I think this 9 Board decided that maybe we'd circulate the letter 10 from Los Angeles to the other assessors to see if 11 they could buy on. And then that way we would have 12 everybody in cooperation with it. 13 Because it wasn't -- we were just trying to 14 create some uniformity here. And -- and I just don't 15 know why that dropped. I'm not sure. But I know 16 that is one issue that I recall that we -- we 17 requested, you know, that it be just resolved. 18 And so I support Member Horton's suggestion 19 here in his process. And I think that if we can get 20 these things on the agenda, we can get them done. 21 We do have Board Member staff that's more 22 than willing to do research and assist in the 23 process. I -- I -- I know that sometimes the -- the 24 Property Tax staff is not really -- they're still 25 staffing up. But I know -- I have some 26 professionals, and we have some professionals still 27 on Board Member staff that could assist with, you 28 know, trying to -- trying to streamline this. 8 1 And -- you know, because we did have this 2 request. We had a full little booklet. There were 3 three items, I believe. Three or four items that 4 were requested by Mr. Aprea. 5 MR. APREA: Yes, ma'am. There -- there were 6 issue of 441(d) requests. There were also the issue 7 of hearings being capriciously denied, and -- and 8 that hearings were extended for long periods of time. 9 Therefore, from our point of view, denying the 10 taxpayer the right before the Assessment Appeals 11 Board for a hearing. 12 MS. HARKEY: Yeah, I -- I recall that, too. 13 And then there was uniformity of the other processes. 14 So, you know, I would like to support what 15 Member Horton's request is here and establish as a 16 standing agenda item. I would very much support 17 that. And I do want to. 18 I know that there's -- like I said, there 19 are concerns that the staff doesn't have -- they're 20 not really geared up to be doing all of this. But I 21 think that we could, as Board Members, submit the 22 items and run them by Mr. Kinnee. And see if we 23 can't do some kind of a unified approach to getting 24 some of these things forward to research and whatnot. 25 Because I don't think that Mr. Kinnee is 26 staffed up to be dealing with some of these items. 27 And they are our request, and I think we should 28 have -- our staff should be putting something 9 1 together for the rest of the Members to review. And 2 we can make a decision up here. 3 Would there be any problem with that, Chief 4 Counsel? 5 MR. NANJO: I would have to get us more 6 details. But in concept, that seems appropriate to 7 do. 8 MS. HARKEY: Yeah. We could -- we could 9 draft a memo and send it to Mr. Kinnee's office, and 10 then have it run by our Chief Counsel. And then 11 maybe stick something on the agenda. And just kind 12 of get these things done. 13 I don't think they're that big of hurdles. 14 I think some of them -- one of them may require a 15 little additional discussion, as obvious it seems to 16 be a sour point. But I think there's -- at least a 17 couple of these items we can take off. 18 Yes. 19 MR. HORTON: Madam Chair, if I may. 20 Let me share that I believe that the process 21 of staff engaging independent of this body needs to 22 be a strong supportive process without Members' 23 involvement, necessarily. So I'm -- I'm actually 24 supportive of not having us involved in that process. 25 The challenge is, is that the issues that 26 have been percolating have not had an opportunity for 27 this body to hear those issues. And to give 28 direction to staff as to how, from a policymaker 10 1 perspective, we believe the policy should be adhered 2 to, or if there is a direction. 3 The airline issue is one that comes to mind. 4 The issue that Mr. Aprea just set forth is an issue 5 that there is no -- there is no venue currently to 6 have that discussion. The public has been excluded 7 from the process as a result of the change in the 8 legislation Until such time that it -- the issues 9 that go through the administrative process 10 matriculate up to the Board Members. 11 But the decision as to whether or not, from 12 a policy perspective, these matters should be 13 expedited, these matters -- instead of having a 14 letter to assessor that they should move into the 15 rule-making process. Because it's not only -- not 16 just germane to a particular assessors, the issue on 17 the consideration is a broader issue. 18 And that's a policy decision. That's not 19 necessarily an administrative decision. And we are 20 not privy to that. 21 And so the public participation is de 22 minimis. And I don't know about other Members, but 23 I'm hearing from my constituencies that they don't 24 have a voice. And quite frankly, it's concerning. 25 The assessors are looking for an opportunity 26 to -- the assessors in my district -- an opportunity 27 to have those dialogues with the decision-makers at 28 least to share some of the issues that they may be -- 11 1 they would like the Board to take under 2 consideration. 3 And then if the Board makes a decision to 4 take it under consideration, then the Board can move 5 it into a more methodical process that drills down on 6 those issues. 7 So -- and that is not to say that every 8 issue that comes before this body in the discussion, 9 the Board is going to collectively say that we 10 believe that this should be -- after consultation 11 with Legal -- that this should move into the 12 rule-making process. That this process should be 13 expedited, and this issue needs to be resolved, and 14 set a calendar for it to be expedited. Because 15 that's a policy decision that this body should be 16 involved in. 17 So it is a preliminary process, similar to 18 in the legislative process where the Legislature will 19 go out and preliminarily conduct throughout the 20 district informational hearings to hear from the 21 general public, either about legislation that has 22 passed or legislation that may pass. We have no 23 vehicle in which to engage our constituency in 24 that -- in that regard. 25 MR. NANJO: So just to clarify for the Board 26 Members, there is a little bit of a limitation that 27 we need to be careful about. 28 Member Horton, you kind of touched on it in 12 1 your comments. And that is the legislation has 2 limitations on the Board directing staff. 3 But to the extent that you provide 4 communications, there's dialogue, either with the 5 public, with staff, or with others, that's 6 acceptable. And I think that's kind of the -- 7 what -- it seems like you had in mind, Member Horton, 8 with your M Item. 9 The other thing that I mentioned in my 10 previous comments, the Board can always agendize an 11 item for general discussion to get input from both 12 staff and members of the public at a Board Meeting. 13 And that is something that you can do as well. 14 MS. HARKEY: Right. 15 MR. NANJO: So there are several vehicles 16 that you have to achieve your goals. 17 MS. HARKEY: That was my suggestion. I 18 think we have a lot of very talented staff that are 19 underutilized right now. And when we got divided, 20 you know, it was obvious that we had an over amount 21 of -- we were over-staffed on our Board Members, and 22 not so well staffed on the other side in the -- in 23 the agency side. 24 That being said, you know, the staff has not 25 been reallocated. Which they probably should be 26 reallocated so that they can -- they can, you know, 27 perform their functions as part of the agency. 28 But there's -- I mean, they've got -- they 13 1 have not lost their mental capacities, nor their 2 ability to provide information. And so if in fact a 3 memo is sent, that is not a direction to do, but I 4 would think, you know, any -- any Executive Director 5 would probably appreciate that. Put it on the to-do 6 list, and research it. Have it researched. 7 I mean, you know, it's -- it's like we're 8 kind of -- we're, you know -- we've got our hands 9 tied every way to Sunday here. And we've got staff 10 that nobody seems to be finding a place for. 11 And they're working, and they're learning, 12 and they're taking tests for, you know, real estate 13 issues. My staff is full speed ahead. And I can't 14 hire the staff that I really need. And these people 15 can't seem to find a position outside. And I'm just 16 wondering why it's breaking down like this. 17 So I have -- I have really good talented 18 staff still remaining on my staff that are trying 19 very hard to get up to speed on the property tax 20 area. Because they have been applying, and they 21 haven't been getting jobs anywhere. And I can't 22 believe it's because they're not -- not able to 23 utilized. I think they're very much able to be 24 utilized. I just think there's just kind of a 25 breakdown in -- in how we're processing. And I 26 really do wonder if -- you know, I mean, some of the 27 way we're processing personnel requests and job 28 applications is appropriate anymore. 14 1 So I'm trying to give them meaningful -- 2 meaningful assignments within the Member's office 3 that might facilitate the agency, which is 4 short-staffed. And I, you know -- I doubt that any 5 Member in this -- any Member sitting up here feels 6 like their staff is being utilized to their full 7 capacity or potential. 8 MR. NANJO: And -- and that would be an 9 acceptable use of Member's staff. To the extent that 10 they can augment the work that needs to be done, 11 that'd be perfectly acceptable. 12 MR. HORTON: Yeah. 13 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 14 MR. HORTON: Point of clarification in 15 regards to our Chief Counsel's comments, which I 16 agree with, by the way. 17 The intent is not to direct staff, I don't 18 believe. The intent is not to change anything that 19 hasn't historically happened in the past. That this 20 collective body is to establish policies within their 21 jurisdiction, and to give direction to the Executive 22 Director as to how those particular issues should be 23 addressed. 24 And so when a process is not working, it is 25 not only the obligation of this body to share its 26 concerns and give direction to the Executive Director 27 as to how that process might be expedited or whether 28 or not it is -- it is -- it is in conformity with our 15 1 constitutional duties to ensure uni -- that the rules 2 are uniformly applied throughout the agency, those 3 are the issues that I believe should move through 4 this process. 5 And true enough, the public could probably 6 call up the agency, you know. But good luck with 7 that. So this provides an opportunity for us to hear 8 from the general public. 9 It's no different than what the Legislature 10 does when there -- when there's an issue of interest 11 to the Legislature. They, in fact, will go even one 12 step further. They will actually conduct these types 13 of informational hearings or public discussions 14 throughout the state to get input from their 15 constituency. 16 The other thing is the accountability side. 17 It kind of brings balance and equalization to the 18 accountability. Everyone is going to be accountable 19 if the public is going to be aware of what's going 20 on. 21 So there is always good in making sure that 22 the public is aware, and that the assessors have an 23 opportunity to speak to us collectively. There's no 24 other way it can happen except for in this 25 environment. 26 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 27 Members, now does this require a -- 28 MS. STOWERS: I -- I -- I -- 16 1 MS. HARKEY: Yes. 2 MS. STOWERS: I just have comments. 3 Okay. We do agree that having some type of 4 an informational hearing will increase transparency, 5 and increasing transparency is always a good thing. 6 I am still unclear on the process the way 7 it's written. I'm not sure that a member of the 8 public or a consultant or someone could say, "I would 9 like for the Board to have a conversation on X." And 10 then they would present that, I'm imagining, somehow 11 through the Chair of the Board, Board Proceeding. 12 And then it would be placed on the agenda. 13 MR. HORTON: Well, from a recommendation 14 perspective, only Members -- subject to the Member's 15 concurrence -- is -- the question is how does this 16 agenda get populated? 17 The same way it has historically, is that 18 historically if a Member wanted to place something -- 19 a Member wanted to place something on the agenda for 20 discussion, they would just simply ask that it be 21 placed on the agenda. Chair would make an 22 assessment, and then Chair would go through whatever 23 they think might be necessary in order to have a 24 fluid, informative, productive discussion. 25 We do want to get -- there is some level 26 of -- or need for some level of intellectual 27 engagement. 28 And then the general public would, if there 17 1 was an issue, they certainly could have a 2 conversation with a Member, or they could have a 3 conversation with the Chief Counsel, or they could 4 have a conversation with the Executive Director. 5 The Executive Director then has a 6 conversation with the Chair. And it gets populated 7 through -- through some -- through that type of 8 process. 9 And, quite frankly, folks might just come 10 and just say they want to speak to their elected 11 officials. 12 MS. STOWERS: Right. So -- so with that 13 being said, it's -- it's populating on the agenda. 14 If it's going to to require resources, and 15 if that's going to fall on the agency, they -- they 16 are very short-staffed. Are we -- I understand that 17 the Chair is saying maybe a Member's office could -- 18 could provide the detail for the -- 19 MS. HARKEY: Yeah, I -- I don't -- I 20 don't -- 21 MR. HORTON: Well -- 22 MS. HARKEY: -- want this to become overly 23 complicated. 24 What I'm trying to do is facilitate the 25 public that elects us and the taxpayers that are 26 here, you know, asking for just certain process to 27 take place to be resolved maybe beyond two or three 28 years, you know -- or -- or maybe before two or three 18 1 years. 2 I just -- I think that what Mr. Aprea is 3 asking for has been around for a while, and that 4 we're just not -- we're not getting any information. 5 And I don't blame our staff. I think they're 6 short-staffed. This happened to all of us, like, 7 rather abruptly. And everybody is just trying to 8 gear up. 9 What I am saying is I have qualified staff 10 that can submit suggestions, and then through the ED, 11 through me, and then through the ED. And the ED can 12 schedule or do whatever he needs to do. 13 And then we also have this other item here 14 that is Board Member requested matters. So we can 15 put those on agenda. 16 MS. STOWERS: Yeah. I -- 17 MS. HARKEY: But I -- I just don't -- I 18 don't want to get stuck in that maybe we are 19 directing staff. We're not. We're bringing up our 20 constitutional responsibilities, and we're trying to 21 bring things forward. 22 And -- and to the extent we're able to do 23 research and provide that, and maybe it gets checked, 24 or maybe just becomes a discussion. I think that's 25 what Member Horton wants, and that's what I want. 26 I -- I really want -- I mean, this has 27 become -- it's becoming a bureaucratic nightmare. 28 MR. HORTON: Yeah. 19 1 MS. HARKEY: And -- and I want to be sure 2 that -- that the issues that are brought before us in 3 earnest -- I mean, they're concerns. And they're 4 not, you know -- they're not irresolvable. They can 5 be resolved. That we just kind of get a little 6 momentum behind them. 7 And I'm not blaming the staff. I'm not 8 saying they need to kick it up. I think our staff -- 9 our -- our staff can help facilitate the process, and 10 then we can just get them scheduled on the agenda. 11 MR. HORTON: Yeah. 12 MS. HARKEY: I don't think we have to make 13 this a nightmare. It's not like -- it's not like we 14 have more than one Board hearing. And it's usually, 15 you know, a couple hours. This one went on a little 16 bit, because there were other issues on it. 17 But I -- I just think -- I don't want to 18 renege on my responsibilities here. And I don't 19 think the incoming Board, whoever they shall be, is 20 going to just sit back and let everybody handle 21 things for them. I can't imagine that. I know some 22 of the candidates, and I can't imagine that. 23 So I'm just -- I'm just saying I would like 24 to at least have a facilitated process, so that, you 25 know, we -- this is kind of our duty to get this 26 thing organized before we get a whole new Board 27 coming in, and then the staff gets a whole new -- 28 different set of instruction. 20 1 It's almost a merciful approach on us to be 2 sure that -- because we understand what we do. We 3 understand what our responsibilities are, we 4 understand what our limits are now, too. And I want 5 to be sure that that's understood so the new Board 6 doesn't come in and start blowing it up, you know. 7 Because they're going to be looking for ways to 8 facilitate. 9 Yes, Mr. Leonhardt. 10 MR. LEONHARDT: If I may just update the 11 Board on Mr. Aprea's matter. 12 There has been a lot of work that's been 13 done on the concerns that were raised by CATA. And 14 the assessors have developed some suggested language 15 for 401(d) request letters, which has been 16 circulated. 17 There was a resource that was created for 18 assessors with information about the appeal's 19 process, which was done subsequent to the meeting 20 that is held with Board staff in December. 21 There was a period of time of which the 22 interested parties had an opportunity to provide 23 comments and information on the discussion. It's my 24 understanding that they're putting that into a 25 matrix. 26 Yesterday I was given a tentative date, I 27 think, for a meeting in the near future to discuss 28 that matter. So there is movement on that topic. 21 1 MS. HARKEY: Thank you. 2 Mr. Aprea, do you feel like there's movement 3 on the topic? 4 MR. APREA: That's news to me about a 5 meeting that's being scheduled. 6 MS. HARKEY: See, this is the problem. We 7 need to have this stuff come forward to the Board. 8 MR. APREA: And -- and staff told you that 9 there was no meeting that had been set. 10 So, again, I'm not -- I just want to set the 11 record straight. 12 I'm also interested to get clarification 13 regarding Mr. Horton's memo. And I'm just -- 14 because, again, I'm not -- 15 You used the terms "making this a standing 16 item." So I wanted to get some clarity on that. 17 Because -- let me -- let me back up. 18 So when you all -- in August of last year, 19 set -- set forth an interested parties process. And 20 then that interested parties process did not -- did 21 not emerge. And then there hasn't been any action 22 other than that one meeting. 23 And, yes, there were letters that were 24 submitted on January the 19th. There hasn't been any 25 other activity. We haven't heard back from your 26 staff as we mentioned in the letter we sent 27 yesterday. And we've -- even though we've requested 28 meetings with the Assessor's Association, no dates 22 1 have been offered by the Assessor's Association to 2 respond to future discussion. 3 So the expectation was that we were going to 4 have an expedited interested parties process. 5 Mr. Horton indicated that typically -- and I don't 6 mean to put that on Mr. Horton -- but he mentioned 7 that that interested parties process typically goes 8 five to six months. 9 Well, here we are six months later. And 10 we're wondering, you know, where are we and what's 11 the next step. 12 MS. HARKEY: And now you're finding out 13 there's been meetings, and there's been decisions. 14 You're not included. 15 MR. APREA: So -- my -- my point, however, 16 is, it is -- I think would be helpful for the Board 17 to be able to allow us to let them know what they 18 should anticipate. 19 Should they, as an example, be prepared to 20 have a discussion with the Board and with other 21 interested parties at your next meeting on this item 22 so that we can, in essence -- as we did at that 23 meeting on the 18th -- discuss with you what our 24 concerns are and where we see, not only where we 25 believe there's been an abuse of power, but where 26 there's been inconsistencies across the Board. 27 Now, we've submitted to you, and you all 28 had -- when we met with you in August -- a number of 23 1 letters that we thought provided evidence to that. 2 But my hope here today is to come away with resetting 3 what that expectation should be and by when might we 4 see some resolution. 5 We may disagree on what issues should be 6 resolved or not, or how they should be resolved. But 7 right now we are waiting for six months, and we don't 8 know where we're going. And, therefore, that is what 9 I'm asking of this Board is to provide us with, some 10 level of expectation. 11 It was Mr. Horton's memo referencing a 12 standing item that gave us some encouragement that, 13 along with the interested parties process, in 14 parallel, that your staff and the other interested 15 parties would be able to inform you as to how they 16 saw things going. 17 Clearly, my good friend from CAA and I 18 perceive the progress in a different way. 19 MR. HORTON: Okay. 20 Madam Chair, I -- I really didn't intend for 21 us to get into the weeds on this. But I do 22 appreciate the discussion. Because the discussion is 23 indicative of -- of the reason why the closed-door 24 discussions that are happening behind closed doors 25 now that the Members are not privy to, that the 26 general public is not privy to, is just wrong. 27 You know, there is no transparency, whether 28 what's going on is -- you know, there is a level of 24 1 transparency in the process that we need to somewhat 2 provide. 3 The staff work, as much as I appreciate and 4 I am sensitive to the lack of staff as a result of 5 some things that have occurred, that's not a decision 6 factor for me. The decision factor is doing the 7 right thing. And then we can't function based on the 8 level of staff. If we did, we would almost have to 9 shut the doors because our staff is seriously 10 under-staffed on a number of different levels. 11 We need a process, a format that provides 12 public transparency, accountability and engagement. 13 It is a mere discussion that can occur on a 14 particular topic. From that discussion, the Members 15 will be able to share collectively their thoughts, 16 and work with the Executive Director to have those 17 challenges addressed. 18 So -- and as it relates to the -- the issue 19 brought forward by Mr. Aprea and the assessor, 20 clearly there's a misunderstanding about -- here. 21 And no matter what one side says and the other side 22 disagrees, and they say, "No, that's not the case." 23 That mere disagreement is an inherent challenge. 24 And so we can have that -- ask the Executive 25 Director to look into it, and then report back to us 26 whatever resolutions he might deem necessary in order 27 to accomplish the objective set forth by the Board to 28 expedite this matter. Because it's been prolonged 25 1 for reasons that I'm certainly aware of. But most of 2 those reasons is a "Cool Hand Luke" reason. 3 I don't know if you saw the movie where he 4 had two prisoners trying to escape, and they realized 5 they had to work together. And the one challenge 6 that they realized is what we have here, is a failure 7 to communicate. 8 And so -- and -- and for me, as a Member, I 9 just want to know what's being talked about behind 10 closed doors. I just want to know -- I want to be 11 privy to those conversations. And I want my 12 constituencies privy to those discussions, to the 13 extent that it doesn't impede the administrative 14 process of you doing the work they need to do. 15 Because I appreciate that as well. 16 MS. HARKEY: Okay. So I, you know -- I will 17 put forth a motion to approve the action to establish 18 a standing agenda item for the Board's monthly 19 meetings regarding constitutional and related 20 statutory matters and our request from 21 stakeholders. 22 MR. HORTON: Second. 23 MS. HARKEY: There's a motion and a second. 24 Is there any objection? 25 No. 26 Okay. Such will be the order. We have it 27 done. 28 And, Mr. Leonhardt, I want you to 26 1 understand -- I understand the assessors are -- some 2 of them are slimly staffed. They're all working, and 3 you're trying to represent a large group. And I do 4 appreciate it. 5 So do not take any of this as a slight. 6 Because I think the communication is just difficult 7 when there's so many actors. And you have to -- you 8 have to balance so many. And I commend you for your 9 Herculean task. 10 MR. LEONHARDT: Why, thank you. It is -- it 11 is going to be a challenge. But I'm enjoying it. 12 And I'm pleased to know that it's in the 13 record now that Mr. Aprea and I are friends. 14 MS. HARKEY: Yeah. You are. You're 15 friends, but you failed to communicate. 16 MR. HORTON: What a start. 17 MS. HARKEY: Okay. There we go. 18 No, you'll enjoy each other's company. 19 You're both great guys. Thank you. 20 ---oOo--- 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 State of California ) 4 ) ss 5 County of Sacramento ) 6 7 I, Jillian Sumner, Hearing Reporter for 8 the California State Board of Equalization certify 9 that on February 27, 2018 I recorded verbatim, in 10 shorthand, to the best of my ability, the 11 proceedings in the above-entitled hearing; that I 12 transcribed the shorthand writing into typewriting; 13 and that the preceding pages 1 through 27 14 constitute a complete and accurate transcription of 15 the shorthand writing. 16 17 Dated: June 21, 2018 18 19 20 ____________________________ 21 JILLIAN SUMNER, CSR #13619 22 Hearing Reporter 23 24 25 26 27 28 28