Indeed. Not to mention that PDAs, so far as I can imagine, would do nothing to address the problem perceived by some.

No jurisdiction has been successfully sued for properly enforcing the law and adequately documenting the enforcement, while many have paid large judgments for not properly enforcing the law.

For example, the county's senior inspector was the on site inspector of the Stafford Creek prison. He worked from a job shack on the construction site and inspecting the prison construction was all he did. His job shack was connected to the county's computer network system so he was able to enter the results of his inspections into the system.

His work and record keeping was so meticulous that GHC did not become enmeshed in the litigation which ensued following completion of the project.

A suggestion was made to the commissioners at the time that the $600,000 SCCC building permit fee be used to establish the building department as an "enterprise fund" within the county's budget, so that building permit fees could be reduced until the $600,000. was exhausted. The suggestion was dismissed with barely a sniff and the "current expense" money was spent largely to fund the criminal justice system.

It was also the case "years ago", as I believe it is today, that the building division generated revenue greater than it's expenditures, thus generated revenue with which to subsidize, one might fairly say, the planning division and other current expense budgets.

well, then inmates seem to have much more of a 'right to know'..just saying, I redact documents for per their request and only names of victims and/or witnesses are redacted..other than that, if you are working at the prison, they get to know your salary, any and all disciplinary actions, etc....so that means the inmates have more right to know than the rest of us tax-paying idiots...this is some country

But they don't get to know addresses, ssn and other personal information which is the point. Discipline, salary, etc especially within law enforcement/corrections has always been public domain. Its not specific to inmates.

The guy won his lawsuit against the contractor. I know that because he got a commercial building from him that the contractor thought he had that hidden that is in my neighborhood. The contractor basically disappeared from contracting after the incident. Those things I know. Whether the claim that the inspector signed off on his buddies shoddy work is just the owners take.

I operate from the premise that 99% of what I hear is BS, until I satisfy myself otherwise through researching the matter.

Hit a nerve? I doubt the commissioners would have released the report in a timely fashion without pressure from the press and ... what MWMI said.

As for other things I related in my post, they were certainly anecdotal in nature and clearly identified as such using the term "anecdotal," and the phrases "for what it's worth" and "In the spirit of broad generalization and insufficient citation," to clearly identify third party talk about the land and acknowledge the dubious nature of such talk while also relating personal experience from a similar neighboring county. It was not an accusation but perhaps it was unnecessary.

I should leave the absurdity of the public process and the harbor behind completely and have a good life. Done. Relief. Good luck with that county of yours ...

Utterly astounding. Not only does the ICC audit report read as though written by a Jr. High student, but the ICC authors very liberally plagiarized from a 2003 report of a review Denver's development review processes.

The county commissioners should refuse to pay ICC for the piece of crap report.

Denver Development "Audit" Report

MWMI, I agree with most of what you say on it being handled badly. The PDC request was given to the PDC officer to handle who conferred with the county's attorney who redacted it. And, thus, a mess was created.

Freelancer, but you can't make up all your own facts. At least one commissioner did want it released and said so on Live at 9 as early as Feb. 8th and in TDW as early Feb. 14. This isn't a kingdom; everything takes two. And the county did file to have the report released, alongside TDW and others. My response was only to this issue in your post. The rest of it sounded like "my sister's husband's brother's wife works with a guy who hunts with somebody who has a girlfriend, and her dad....yada yada". I can't prove or disprove a ghost-hunt like that and don't really care to bother. Anybody can throw out allegations. In my experience, when all the facts are known, the situation is rarely as originally described.

Turnow, agreed. At least one commissioner...the one who originally said it looked as if it was written by a junior high school kid... wants to withhold payment for the balance due to the ICC and sue them for the return of the $4500 (or was it $4k?) already paid. I have no idea if there is agreement on this or not but I don't think it's been decided yet. And he felt this way prior to the Denver report coming to his attention on Friday. The ICC did not fulfill the contract and, therefore, should not be paid.

Not only should the County refuse to pay anymore for this report, they should demand and, if necessary sue for the money they've paid.

Additionally, I have to wonder if it is only the author of the report or the company itself who could be liable for criminal charges. Afterall, there was a blatant attempt to defraud the citizens of Grays Harbor.

It seems that it would cost more to get back what has already been paid, but I certainly hope the commissions tell the ICC the county will not pay the remainder of the bill. I doubt the ICC would object, as its officials probably are not anxious for any more exposure of its plagiarized, piece of crap "report".

The whole episode is atrocious. Dealing with complaints about a county department certainly does not require hiring a consultant.