The Haines Borough administration took a local church to court without Assembly direction.
The Assembly met on June 9. The court appeal was filed on June 10. When asked why the matter had not come before the Assembly before filing, Borough Manager Alekka Fullerton said, “By the time it came to me, it was, we need to file tomorrow or not.” That explanation exposes a lack of transparency.
Why was direction not sought from the Assembly during its June 9 meeting before taxpayer funds were committed to litigation?
When the issue finally came before the Assembly on July 14, the Manager defended the effort to overturn the unanimous BOE decision because the contract assessor believed the church’s property was not used regularly enough to qualify. Yet the law establishes no minimum frequency of use. It mandates an exemption for property “used exclusively” for nonprofit religious purposes.
During that same meeting, the bBorough attorney was asked whether Haines could add a minimum-use requirement to its code. He advised that it could not because bBorough code must conform to the mandatory exemption established by state law and the Alaska Constitution. That exposes the central contradiction: Why pursue through litigation a minimum-use interpretation the BBorough cannot lawfully add to its own code?
The Assembly unanimously directed that the appeal be withdrawn. That discussion should have occurred before the bBorough went to court, not afterward. Every taxpayer should be concerned when public money is committed to litigation without Assembly direction, transparency, or public discussion.
Brenda Josephson