Can you comment on the situation that happened in Fairlington in 2005? To summarize in a nutshell, a group of Fairlington residents (approx. 100 households) never received their real estate tax bills, and then were charged late fees of 10%. Apparently it is not known whether the screw-up was with the treasurer's office or with the Post Office. Regardless, the treasurer refused to waive the late fees. He claimed state law prevented him from waiving the fees but apparently he waived the fees in at least one case. Some residents have filed a lawsuit. Here is an article from the Post about the situation, dated 8/17/06:
http://www.washingto...

I am a new Arlington resident and I live in Fairlington. I received a letter from one of the residents who was slapped with the late fees in support of opponent Bob James. I read through it carefully and it was pretty convincing. I would like to know why these residents were not granted late-fee waivers since they did not ever receive their bills (through  no fault of their own), and I would also like to know why O'Leary never conducted a full investigation concerning why the residents never received their bills. Whose fault was it?

Can you comment?

It happened in 2006, and the number of households was actually 17.  Here is an excerpt from Frank's website.  I realize that it is a little longish, and I apologize.  It does, however, explain the situation:

"Throughout his career, Frank O'Leary has made it a top priority to ensure that Arlington's Treasurer's office is 100% in compliance with the Code of Virginia governing public treasurers. On rare occasions, the law does not serve Arlington taxpayers well. Such was the case with 17 residents in Fairlington whose real estate tax bills may have been lost in the mail.

Recognizing that if such an incident occurred it would be harsh for the Fairlington residents to be penalized, Frank explored all possible avenues that would allow him to waive their late penalties. Unfortunately, under the Code of Virginia, a local treasurer cannot waive late penalties, even if a resident never received a bill. Frank has always upheld his oath of office and his commitment to following the law - even when he disagrees with it.

In 2004, prior to this unfortunate incident, Frank created an Electronic Taxpayer Notification Service that allows taxpayers to sign up for e-mail notification of their tax bills, in addition to notification by U.S. Mail. Under this system, taxpayers receive an email notifying them of their tax assessments and a reminder of when their payment is due. Frank continues to promote this program to avoid the potential for similar situations in the future."

Hope this helps!

were was at least one waiver granted.  If he could grant a waiver in one case, why couldn't he in all cases.  Did he not follow the law in that case?

The waiver to which you are referring was unrelated to the Fairlington case.

What was the waiver related to?

Ingrid, thanks for the response, but I am still left with questions unanswered. Let me share the letter that I got from one of my Fairlington neighbors (I hope it's OK to share it here...)

====================================
May 25, 2007

Dear Fairlington Residents,

Tuesday June 12 is the day you can send a clear message to local politicians who think they can abuse with impunity the power we have vested in the to manage Arlington County affairs. It is election day for County Treasurer, which pits Bob James against the incumbent, Frank O'Leary.

I support Bob James. Mr. O'Leary will not get my vote because of the high-handed manner in which he handled a property tax incident in the fall of 2005 that affected many of our South Fairlington residents, including me. We received delinquency notices for failing to pay our tax on time and - besides having to pay the tax - we were assessed an additional 10% late penalty. Many of those victimized were senior citizens fortunate enough to have paid off their mortgages but who are retired and on fixed incomes.

Following a barrage of complaints from taxpayers who never received their fall tax notice in the mail, the Treasurer's Office discovered that the number of delinquency notices jumped 500% in the community when compared to the spring billing cycle. Without doing a thorough internal investigation of the Treasurer's Office, O'Leary blamed the Post Office, which countered that is own internal investigation established that its mail carriers were not at fault. To this day, we believe we have not been given a full explanation.

Frank O'Leary left us with no other option but to file a lawsuit.

We honest taxpayers should not have had to sue in order to remedy this issue when the Treasurer had a number of statutorily supportable justifications for waiving the penalties. Most applicable is "clerical error," and in fact 16 residents were exempted from the penalty for that reason in the fall of 2005. This issue speaks directly to the malevolent character of the current Treasurer. A fair-minded Treasurer would have given us the benefit of the doubt and found a way to help. That person is not the current Treasurer.

Elections are a time to hold our officials accountable. I will express my displeasure with Mr. O'Leary at the ballot box June 12. If you feel an injustice has been done in this matter, please join me in support of a new Arlington County Treasurer, Bob James. Contact me or the campaign at [phone number] to help.

Sincerely,
James Sharpe

Paid for by the Friends of Bob James; Michael O'Connor, Treasurer
====================================

Now, I am still wondering why O'Leary was able to exempt 16 people from a penalty due to "clerical error." (Or, were 16 people really exempted or what the letter writer mistaken? Because that number conflicts with Ingrid's number.)

It seems clear to me that there was obviously a clerical screw-up  either at the treasurer's office or at the post office. It seems terribly unfair that the residents would have to pay the penalty anyway. I would have to see the exact statute in the Virginia Code that states that a treasurer cannot under any circumstances waive a penalty, before I believe O'Leary's explanation that Ingrid pasted from his web site above.

Like I said before, I am a brand-new Arlington resident, and honestly I really wasn't planning on voting in the primary tomorrow before I received this letter... but I do plan on voting now.

At the very least, I think a full investigation should have been done and an official explanation given. Or maybe if it's really true that he statutorily could not waive the penalty, he should have encouraged a local state delegate or senator to introduce a bill in the legislature to fix the statute.

--Brooke

This campaign is about much more than a late payment fee.  If a late payment fee is all you care about, then I suggest that you get a little bit up to speed on what kind of a person O'Leary's opponent is. The people who are behind Bob James' candidacy should have checked him out more carefully. We have since found out that he is a tax cheat who looks out for himself only and who has frequently used the race card to try to win people over. Arlingtonians deserve better than that. See the comment by "Prester John" in this link: http://vaprogressive...

You're right, and I have been trying to do my homework. I have read about Bob James' failure to pay some of his taxes on time. (Heck, I've been guilty of that too in the past, in my young & poor slacker days! Does that mean I will never be qualified to run for office in the future??) And I didn't even know Bob James was black, so I know nothing about him using "the race card."

I just would honestly like to get a real explanation about what happened in Fairlington, since I live there, and since I think it was a horribly unfair situation that could have easily happened to me or to anyone in the county.

I still want to know exactly what statute it is that prevented O'Leary from granting a waiver. I would also like to know if O'Leary has spoken to any members of the legislature about introducing legislation to amend the statute.

@Ingrid: "It happened in 2006, and the number of households was actually 17."

Two things: first, according to the letter I received, the Post article linked above, and a Sun Gazette article here: http://www.sungazett...  it happened in 2005. Is this correct?

Also, re: the number of people who did not receive their bills. In the Post article linked above, the Fairlington resident who also wrote the letter I received said the following:

=========
"Sharpe said that nearly 100 people in South and North Fairlington received delinquency notices. The county said about 20 percent of residents in Zip code 22206, which includes Fairlington, were delinquent. That's nearly three times the percentage in the county overall.

Sharpe said that about 50 of his neighbors joined him in the fight, but the number had shrunk to 15 when the lawsuit was filed in June."
=========

So it seems possible/probable to me that Ingrid's number of 17 is low. If what Sharpe said is true, then it could theoretically be almost 100 people who failed to get their bills.