BRT members sue Phila. to preserve their agency

In a last-ditch effort to preserve Philadelphia's Board of Revision of Taxes, five board members filed suit against the city this week, asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to halt the dismantling of the embattled agency.

In the May 18 primary election, Philadelphia voters are scheduled to determine the BRT's fate. The ballots will ask voters' permission to abolish the agency effective Oct. 1 and replace it with two new entities: one to set property assessments, the other to hear appeals of those assessments.

If the state Supreme Court approves, the BRT's suit would take that question off the ballot, preserving the property-assessment status quo for at least a while longer.

As documented by Inquirer reports, the BRT has presided over an assessment system that is among the most inaccurate and inequitable in the nation.

The suit contends that the city lacks the authority to completely dismantle the seven-member board. It argues that the state legislature specifically vested assessment appeals powers with the BRT, and required that BRT leaders be appointed by the city's judiciary.

By proposing to abolish the BRT, the city has "usurped the legislature's power" and "usurped the established exercise of independent judicial power," the suit contends.

Attorneys William P. Murphy and Howard K. Goldstein, who filed the suit on the BRT members' behalf, declined to comment. Board member Robert N.C. Nix III, who speaks on the board's behalf, did not return a message seeking comment.

Until now, the BRT had seemed to be quietly moving toward inevitable dissolution.

The board, which is appointed by the city's judiciary, voluntarily handed over day-to-day control of property assessments to the Nutter administration in November. The mayor named Rich Negrin, a senior Aramark attorney, to lead the BRT's assessment employees, and to prepare them for the transition to a new agency.

Only the board, and not Negrin's unit, is involved in the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the board has continued to consider assessment appeals, but that job, too, would grind to a near halt next year. Mayor Nutter has ordered a two-year freeze on reassessments, to give the city time to generate accurate assessments.

"They've turned over all their assessing functions to Rich Negrin and the mayor's office. There's not going to be any appeals next year. It's not clear what they're fighting for, other than the right to get paid," said Councilman Bill Green, who sponsored the legislation that would abolish the BRT with voter approval.

At $70,000 a year for part-time work, a job on the Board of Revision of Taxes is one of the most desirable public-service plums in Philadelphia.

If voters abolish the BRT, however, the property appeals board that replaces it will pay most of its members no more than $40,000 annually. And it is highly unlikely that any current BRT members would land positions on the new assessment board, given that those appointees would be named jointly by the mayor, City Council, and a nominating panel.

The BRT's lawsuit rests on the state Supreme Court's 1955 ruling in Truscott v. City of Philadelphia, which held that the city did not have the authority to abolish the BRT.

But Green noted that in 1963 the legislature amended state law, giving City Council powers to "legislate with respect to" the "abolition, merger, consolidation" of the "Board of Revision of Taxes or its successor."

"In state law it's clear that City Council's powers sweep the field with respect to assigning powers and duties to the BRT," Green said. "We are very confident that it's legal or we wouldn't have done it."

City Solicitor Shelley Smith said the city was "still looking at" the filing and had no comment.

Unlike most civil cases, which are filed in Common Pleas Court, the BRT filed its suit with the Supreme Court, asking it to exercise "King's Bench Power," or extraordinary jurisdiction over lower courts.

The state Supreme Court could hear the case, or direct the BRT to file with a lower court.

Of the seven BRT members, the five that are party to the suit are Nix, Harvey M. Levin, chairwoman Charlesretta Meade, former state Supreme Court Judge Russell M. Nigro, and former Municipal Judge Alan Silberstein. The two other members, Howard M. Goldsmith and Anthony Lewis Jr., were appointed to the board only Friday.

This is the second lawsuit connected to the abolition of the BRT. An earlier suit filed by patronage employees sought to prevent Nutter's takeover of the agency's property assessing function. Common Pleas Court Judge Gary F. DiVito last month rejected the request for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked the takeover.