By Sheila Getzinger
If you did, read on. ... The town of Moretown made two significant changes relating to the payment of real estate taxes last year. First, they no longer accept a postmark as evidence of timely payment. Second, they changed the due date from November 1 to October 30 (the first fell on a Sunday and though it likely would have been more fair to the taxpayers to make the due date November 2, it was October 30).
Eighty-eight (88) taxpayers paid late last year and while there is no way of knowing how many paid late because of the changes noted, what we do know is that the Moretown Board of Civil Authority abated the penalty and interest for the two taxpayers who requested abatement because of the date change and postmark change saying "the reason [for the late payment] relates to less than desirable communication concerning the deadline for filing on the part of the town" and "The Board considers this to constitute manifest error [on the part of the town]."
It seems to me that if the town's communication of the changes – which were both quite clearly stated on the tax bill – were less than desirable or that the town made a manifest error, then penalty and interest for the month of November 2015 should have been abated for everyone – not just the two who had a heck of a nerve to ask for abatement (was the excuse that they were illiterate?).
Look, that I paid my taxes on time last year was sheer luck because I didn't see the "postmarks not accepted" or the date change either. I didn't read my tax bill and there is no basis for abatement for that reason, in my opinion. The basis for abatement the BCA used is the law, which allows abatement where there is a manifest error or a mistake of the listers!
The listers didn't make any mistake here and no one is even claiming that they did! Nonetheless, since the Board of Civil Authority found that the town made a mistake, the 8 percent and 1 percent interest for the month of November of 2015 ought to be abated for every taxpayer in town who paid late. That is the only fair and equitable thing to do as the abatements given to the two people who asked for them cannot now be reversed.
Remember, I paid on time and if the town has to pay back money, it'll cost me, but it's the right thing to do. I don't believe any charges already collected by and paid to Craig Eilers should be recouped from him either. He didn't change the due date for taxes or change the postmark policy, nor did he have the legal authority to abate penalty and interest for some people when the select board asked him to do so. He did the right thing and for that the select board is trying to take his job away from him and throw him under the bus.
If these mistakes cost someone, they should cost all of us and not just the delinquent tax collector and 86 others. This leads to the second part of this message. A petition is circulating to ask the select board to hold a special town meeting to reconsider the recent vote to allow them to appoint a delinquent tax collector.
Do you really want people who would abate penalty and interest for two people and knowingly leave 86 of you hanging out in the wind to appoint a delinquent tax collector who will – by their own admission – "do what we say"? I sure don't.
I want to elect someone who I feel I can trust to do the right and fair thing for everyone – not just for a few – and who does a very good job of something which requires a delicate balance of interests. It's a hell of a lot more than just depositing checks, folks. Let's not make another mistake.
Those other 86 people should immediately request abatement and all of you should sign the petition to reconsider the select board's ability to appoint a delinquent tax collector and vote no to allowing them to take over your rights and make even more decisions behind the curtain. Finally, before you blame the entire Board of Civil Authority and select board, find out who voted which way for the abatements. These decisions were not unanimous by any means.
Thank you for listening.
Sheila Getzinger lives in Moretown.
