Assessor Patti Punctual is one day away from a tribunal hearing when paralegal Lennie Laggard sends her new information about a lease on the property under appeal. Lennie had ample of time to provide this information well in advance of the hearing, but failed to do so. Patti doesn't have time to consider this new information before the hearing and doesn't know what impact, if any, it might have on her opinion of the value of the property. What she does know is that the appeal has already been delayed several times, that she doesn't want an adjournment, and that the tribunal frowns on late requests to adjourn. So Patti proceeds to the hearing and bases her expert testimony on her original analysis (that does not include any consideration of the new information provided by Lennie).

Which provisions of the IMA Code are most applicable to the situation in which Patti found herself?

How do you believe Patti should have handled this situation, and why?

How ethical/unethical was Patti's behaviour and why?