Fraud Charged in Tax Hearing

Attorneys for William W. Graham File Motion to Exclude Testimony of
Key Witnesses for Town, Cite Ongoing Contradictions

By IAN FEIN

BOSTON - Alleging that West Tisbury assessors and their
counsel may have deliberately withheld vital information from their own
expert appraiser, attorneys for West Tisbury resident William W. Graham
filed a motion yesterday to exclude the testimony of the town's
two key witnesses in a complex legal hearing before the Massachusetts
Appellate Tax Board.

"This is a tax case, but it is also a fraud case,"
declared attorney Richard Wulsin, who is representing Mr. Graham.
"The behavior of the assessors shows that the fraud is
ongoing."

In his motion, Mr. Wulsin cited "continuously changing and
contradictory testimony" and charged that town assessors only
provided their expert witness with maps detailing wetlands on Mr.
Graham's property when they decided to change tactics in the
hearing. The appraiser last week revised his report to include
information from the maps, which he did not receive from the town
assessors until June, more than a month after the hearing began.

Attorney Ellen Hutchinson, who is representing the town assessors,
apologized to the board for the delays caused by the appraiser's
revisions, but assured the board chairman that the failure to previously
provide him with maps was simply an oversight. Ms. Hutchinson argued
that disallowing the expert's testimony would be a
"miscarriage of justice," and also took offense over
allegations of misconduct.

"I'm tired of having my integrity and the integrity of
my client questioned," Ms. Hutchinson told tax board chairman Anne
Foley, who is presiding over the hearing. "To say it was a
strategic decision is absurd."

Chairman Foley took the Graham motion on the withholding of
information under advisement and had both experts proceed with their
testimony. The appraiser submitted the final version of his revised
report yesterday afternoon, and is set to begin the bulk of his
testimony today.

Chairman Foley last week also denied the town's two previous
motions to dismiss Mr. Graham's case on the grounds of a lack of
evidence, as well as a motion to dismiss parts of the case based on a
lack of jurisdiction.

Late last week the prolonged hearing, the longest and costliest
residential property tax appeal ever to come before the state appellate
board, turned controversial with the introduction of contradictory
evidence that appeared to raise questions of perjury.

During cross-examination of West Tisbury principal assessor Jo-Ann
Resendes, attorneys for Mr. Graham produced as evidence a signed
document from town selectman John Early that directly contradicted her
testimony.

At issue is whether Ms. Resendes and the town's third-party
appraisal consultant visited a large waterfront property near Mr.
Graham's lots on the other side of Paul's Point when they
changed its property record in a way that sent other values in the area
skyrocketing. Mr. Graham, who owns 235 acres at Mohu off Lambert's
Cove Road, is challenging his assessments from fiscal years 2003 and
2004 when he paid the town more than a half-million dollars in property
taxes. His case also charges that West Tisbury's system of land
valuations and property tax assessments is fundamentally flawed.

Ms. Resendes testified last week that she saw no tree clearing and
walked around the original house when she visited the property with June
Perry, an employee of Vision Appraisal Technology Inc., in late March or
early April 2001. Ms. Resendes described the house in detail and assured
the tax board chairman that her recollection was from the visit and not
from photographs in the assessors' records.

"When you visited the property, are you certain no clearing
had occurred?" Mr. Wulsin asked Ms. Resendes.

"I took note of no clearing," she answered.

"And you're equally certain that you drove to the end of
the driveway, got out of the car and walked around the house?" Mr.
Wulsin followed.

"Yes," Ms. Resendes replied.

"Do you know John Early?" Mr. Wulsin asked, and then
produced a document signed by Mr. Early under penalty of perjury.
"Let's see whether this refreshes your memory about what you
saw."

Mr. Early, who owns a construction company and worked as the general
contractor on the large waterfront property near Paul's Point,
provided Mr. Graham last week with an invoice that shows the original
house was demolished in August 2000, seven months prior to Ms.
Resendes' reported visit.

Before Ms. Resendes could reply or respond to the document, Ms.
Hutchinson objected to it as hearsay.

"It seems to me this is a critical fact in this case,"
Mr. Wulsin argued. "I'm a little surprised that a fact
clearly within the grasp of the town has become so convoluted."

Mr. Wulsin noted that Mr. Early testified on the first day of the
trial, but Ms. Hutchinson objected to questions pertaining to his work
as a contractor because he had been identified in the witness list as a
selectman. In response to Ms. Hutchinson's hearsay objection, Mr.
Wulsin re-subpoenaed Mr. Early as a rebuttal witness. Mr. Early is
expected to testify in Boston later this week about the demolition of
the house.

The significance of the contradiction about the property visit
- aside from raising questions about possible perjury - goes
to the heart of the allegations of fraud.

Attorneys for Mr. Graham argued in their opening statement that the
assessors and their consultant deliberately falsified the property
record of that nearby waterfront parcel by changing its classification
from having a water view to no water view, which allowed them to nearly
triple many of the other property values in the area, including those of
Mr. Graham.

The town assessors initially said they changed the classification
because the property was heavily wooded when they said they visited it
in 2001. But witnesses last week openly acknowledged that the property
did indeed have a view in 2001.

Chairman Foley zeroed in on the issue and aggressively questioned
town witnesses about the changes to the disputed property record.

Before allowing Ms. Resendes to step down from the stand, Chairman
Foley asked her whether she believes it is appropriate to change a
physical characteristic of a property to hit a predetermined value. Ms.
Resendes replied that in this instance she did not change the physical
characteristic, but merely the factor that determines its value.

"Is a view a physical characteristic?" Chairman Foley
asked.

"It's a description of a factor, not a physical
characteristic," Ms. Resendes responded.

A visibly irritated Chairman Foley then produced a previous piece of
evidence that showed the Massachusetts Department of Revenue audit of
the West Tisbury assessors' revaluation in 2002. The audit lists
"view" as one of the land adjustments - or physical
characteristics - used by the town assessors.

Chairman Foley asked Ms. Resendes again: "Is view a physical
characteristic?"

Ms. Resendes replied: "The presence or absence of a view, yes,
is a physical characteristic."

Chairman Foley had similar questions for Vision Appraisal district
manager Stephen Ferreira, who testified last week and again yesterday as
an expert witness for the town. Mr. Ferreira acknowledged that the
change to the description of the property was incorrect, but defended
the value that the change produced.

"I want to understand your role in the change of the
description," Chairman Foley said to Mr. Ferreira.
"You're saying you had no role. But what would you have done
as the project supervisor if this had been brought to your attention
- that the change to the description did not reflect the reality
of the property?"

Mr. Ferreira replied that he would have asked that it be corrected.

"If it was incorrect, should you have brought it to the
department of revenue's attention?" Chairman Foley asked.

Mr. Ferreira said the state is typically not concerned with property
descriptions.

"It was the testimony of the state bureau chief last week that
changes to a description that didn't fit with the reality of the
property would not have been approved," Chairman Foley said.

"There's no doubt that the description was a poor choice
of words," Mr. Ferreira said later.

"Is it a poor choice of words, or is it a physical
characteristic that has been changed to be different than the physical
characteristic that was on the property?" Chairman Foley replied.

In their motion filed yesterday, attorneys for Mr. Graham asked that
Mr. Ferreira's testimony be excluded from the record. They charged
he has a conflict of interest and therefore should not be accepted as an
expert witness.

Through yesterday, Mr. Ferreira has attended 24 of 26 days of
hearings to either testify or advise Ms. Resendes and Ms. Hutchinson.
According to the assessors' contract with Vision Appraisal, the
town will pay Mr. Ferreira $700 per day for his time during the hearing.

"An independent expert should have no stake in the outcome of
the case and no bias for or against any of the parties," Mr.
Wulsin argued in his motion. "Vision Appraisal, while not a named
party, clearly has an interest in the outcome of the case."

Mr. Ferreira testified he does not believe a ruling against the town
in this case would have a negative impact on Vision Appraisal or reflect
on his personal reputation.