"The audit report is done, but because the county considers it a draft until commissioners are allowed to give their input, the redactions in the report that has been released are so heavy that even the title of the report is partially blacked out."

I don't understand the problem with this request for the Planning Audit which has been completed. Couldn't the Audit Report be released in full now, and the county response to the report be released later?

http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2010/01/29/local_news/doc4b632ea4163a9910371198.txt

[quote=Brit]I don't understand the problem with this request for the Planning Audit which has been completed. Couldn't the Audit Report be released in full now, and the county response to the report be released later? [quote]

In a word: "yes." The only reason I can see for all of the redactions would be that whoever reviewed the draft prior to releasing it to the media believes that the redacted sections will be later deleted or substantially edited by the county commissioners.

This is where the political ineptitude of the county commissioners truly astounds me.

Guys, this is Grays Harbor you're in. There cannot be anything in that report so utterly inflammatory that it will cause less of a stir among the yahoos than blacking out page after page of the report.

Even if the full report is released now, the yahoos will claim it has been edited, rewritten, or something else, in order to hide something that would have the citizenry storming the commission offices with pitchforks and torches.

On this one, county commissioners, you get an Epic Fail.

You're being polite. The commissioners' stupidity is astounding, not to mention the incompetence of their legal advisers.

Ditto

I'd like to think the report could not be edited or changed by the commissioners, thus it is not a draft. The drafting was done before the report was submitted. The commissioners may not agree with the findings or may have some comments or clarifications, but those would be in response to the report. Perhaps they'll take a second look at this situation and now release the report in full which cost the taxpayers $20,000.

I agree. If they edit or delete sections from the report it will lose any semblance of objectivity which would defeat the whole purpose of paying for an independent review. Adding the comments of the commissioners is one thing, changing the report is quite another.

Thank you Brit for pointing out the taxpayers paid for this "report".
We deserve to know what was written.

I couldn't agree more with Beavis and the above comments on this.

Man, who sends out a report like that to the newspaper? It's not national security. Well that's one way to turn a potential yawn-fest policy review into a full-fledged scandal/conspiracy/coverup. Incredible blunder, unless the report contains potentially actionable material since it reviewed a number of large development permitting processes. Hmmmm. There, see. The conspiracy theories begin. Circle the wagons, send in the attorneys, blame the newspaper for requesting public information, never finalize the "draft," and throw it on a shelf. Ouch.

Of course if this was just a power play pissing match with the newspaper ... that almost makes it worse.

Well, it could be worse you know. I've got Tim Sheldon as my commissioner, and my senator. Double the pleasure, double the fun.

"The county commissioners initially declined to release the document, saying it was internal county policy never to release documents in their “draft” form."

What's an "internal" policy? Per RCW 42.56.040 the county has a duty to publish its procedures for records requests. I think that means publish before there's a problem, not make them up in response to reporters' questions.

While I agree that redacting it makes no real sense, I can understand the motivation.

Imagine a situation where someone makes a complaint against the actions of a sheriff's deputy or city attorney, so someone is hired to investigate. The complainant is interviewed but the investigator never interviews the deputy (or the attorney), never reviews official records in the file, never reviews the policies and procedures that govern those positions to see if the deputy or attorney did their duties as required by those policies, and other activities you would normally expect in an investigation but, yet, the investigator hands you a report and says "I'm done."

Maybe the deputy did not use excessive force (just an example) as when the file is reviewed and the deputy is interviewed, it is found that the complainant did not go cooperatively when pulled over but, rather, pulled out a knife and charged the deputy.

Maybe the city attorney didn't actually issue an order for someone's arrest for repeated failure to show up in court (a stretch maybe? I city attorneys do this but don't know for sure) because the records show that proper notice was served even though the complainant insists they didn't know they had a court date.

Makes more sense to me to release it but then state the problems with it, i.e. lack of any real investigation as requested in the contract with the "investigators". Also, I don't believe the report has been paid for yet as the work requested hasn't been completed so your money hasn't been spent yet. Do you pay the roofer for the entire cost of the job before the job is done? No, ya don't.

Not to mention the concern that the report states that meetings occurred with the commissioners that, apparently, really didn't occur. If that's inaccurate, what else in the report might be inaccurate?

Public relations issue? Obviously...just seeing how you all reacted indicates that is probably true. But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that an actual investigation occur before the draft be accepted either.

Sounds like excuses. And in both your examples both would still be a matter of public record right or wrong. It would be up to those with additional knowledge to come forward. In reading your post its obvious you think the info should be released but fail to acknowledge its a matter of law.

To me what it boils down to is the commissioners may not agree with the findings and may possess knowledge to rebut some of the same info. But regardless that is done in a public setting and not behind closed doors. In the end regardless of what the report says it would be up to them to take action on the information. If they feel information contained within the report is wrong or does not justify any type of action then it would their perogative to leave it alone and perhaps explain why they disagree with the findings.

In the end all the commissioners did was take a report that probably would have been a few days of articles at worst and give rise to consipiracy theorists all over. To me when it comes to their actions on this issue it is an epic fail.

I have to agree this ended up a much bigger issue than it should or, at least, could have been. But, I only know a tad bit more than I've read on this board. I don't read the paper very often.

My organization, admittedly not a public entity, goes through an accreditation every three years and an audit every year. My Board sees the exit interview(s) for both and the final product of both. The exit interview occurs prior to the final report being finished.

I always appreciate an auditor or an accrediation surveyor who will report to me prior to either meeting and say, "I have found this and intend on reporting this. Is there anything else I should see, review or consider that I may have missed on this issue?" They don't have to do that, but I believe it is constructive. And I don't have to have them back for the next audit or accreditation survey.

That is very difficult, if not impossible to do with a three person commission. If there were an Executive Director, or Manager, he/she could be consulted. The only alternative is to communicate with a single commissioner regarding the issue.

I don't understand why anyone would think that an audit of the building division was necessary in the first place.

The building codes are adopted by the state legislature and the counties and cities are required by law to enforce them. The codes in effect in WA since the 1990s are the "International" family of codes (building, mechanical, plumbing, and fire, last I knew). The International Code Council (ICC), the organization which conducted the "audit", writes and publishes the codes through a process which includes the development of standards by committees of interested parties.

Having 25 years of code enforcement experience and five years as the county's building official, it seems to me there are really only two questions when it comes to complaints about the building department (likewise in complaints about a police dept.). One, did the building dept. staff enforce the law as written? And, two, were they respectful when doing so.

There are areas of the various codes where a bit of interpretation is required and there is at the GHC building dept. a means of appealing an interpretation with which one disagrees. A person may appeal to the building official putting forth one's interpretation, the building official might or might not call the ICC for its interpretation (which I did a number of times), and render a decision. If one is still not satisfied one may appeal to the county's Building Code Advisory Council.

My conclusion has been that most folks do not object to complying with building and related codes; and that all they ask is that they receive decent service during the process, that the codes are enforced uniformly from day-to-day and from customer-to-customer, and that they are treated respectfully during the process.

It's pretty simple really, and I know the county's senior building inspector understands such.

It seems to me the only reason a commissioner would order and "audit" is to avoid the responsibilities of his or her office.

This is the easiest thing I've ever had to respond to. The reason why I didn't acknowledge it is because I don't have a freakin' clue if it's a matter of law or not. I know virtually nothing about what is a matter of public record or not. I know that some things or all things that are talked about in executive session are not public record. But I have no idea what all things are allowed in executive sessions and what things aren't. Not a freakin' clue. Never worked with any of this stuff. OK, I do know of one type of thing that is often discussed in executive sessions and is not a matter of public record and that is personnel issues, correct?

So, there you have it...I'm pretty ignorant of the matter so I couldn't respond. You say it is. A city attorney says it is. A county attorney says it isn't. How can I determine who is right? I can't.

As for the rest, I'm all for open government so, if it were me, I'd err on the side of it.

Maybe those were bad analogies. Maybe I can come up with a better one: Joe makes a complaint about your deputy work which prompts an investigation by internal affairs. But all they do is talk to Joe, take what he says as fact, write a report saying that you are doing a lousy job as a deputy and it gets printed in the front page of the newspaper as fact.

Would that report be public record, too? What if the Sheriff didn't feel that the investigation had been done properly and that this was a personnel matter and, therefore, he refused to release it to the media without redacting it? Would he be wrong, too?

But what if he felt this was a personnel issue? Would it fall under that criteria?

I really don't know. I'm just asking. And I think the analogy is pretty dang close to what happened with this "investigation".

Because a small group of very vocal people have been complaining to the press with quite a few articles pointing fingers at the planning department for causing problems for local contractors, etc. Plus a lot of complaints made directly to the commissioners so, after looking into it themselves, they realized they needed someone with more expertise to help them make a determination.



I was in total agreement with you until this last comment. So you really think the commissioners who have no expertise in building codes should be able to review dozens, if not hundreds, of files and determine if the codes were applied to every building situation equally? With a full understanding of what parts of the codes apply when? Really? Seriously?

Gosh, I guess I'm qualified to make the big bucks doing audits of corporate finances, income tax returns, claims reviews for insurance companies, and to assess whether new, experimental airplanes meet all safety and operational standards and are ready to be sold to the airlines. After all, I can balance my checkbook, fill out a 1040, know a dent in a car when I see one and how to put on a band-aid, and I've been a passenger on a few planes. Those experiences must make me eminently qualified to do all that. What more do I need to know?

The state mandates all sorts of audits on various government entities, departments, etc. Do you really think they should be auditing themselves? If the IRS ever decides to audit me, do you think they'll let me audit myself?

It's kinda ridiculous, isn't it?

The answer is pretty simple. If your a public employee and/or elected official more or less everything you say and do is public record. Everyone in a public position has things said about them or disagreeing with them from time to time. Elected officials and those that are authority figures much more so. Its a fact of life. Anyone who can't handle that shouldn't be in the game.

But in the end your comparing apples and oranges.

The commissioners VERY PUBLICLY announced this audit. They cannot after receiving it refuse to release it because they disagree with its findings thorough or not.

This is not a judgement on whether or not the report should have been requested. Personally I could care less about that part. But it is a judgement on their decision to edit what they released. In the end they have every opportunity to respond to things they disagree with but IMHO they do not have the right to hide the report or in this case portions of it from the public.

Seriously. I do. I don't think an "audit" was necessary. Why? Because Mark Doyle, who is no for his long list of violations of building, demolition, and outdoor burning regulations, complains. Doyle who Willis was listening to. I think it's ridiculous.

Come on now, you're not seriously comparing determining whether or not a building inspector faithfully enforced the law and was respectful doing so to auditing corporate finances and etc.?

I just found out I have a dog in the fight. The County Commissioners have hired me to do an audit of the Sheriff's department*. I plan to do a thorough investigation of the complaints made by people in the jail, then release my conclusions to the newspaper.

This seems like a good plan to me. Surely no one interested in public transparency could disagree, right?

* Umm, not really.

("not really" understood).....

So I'm assuming that the commissioners investigated their options, checked your credentials, discussed the best person/agency to use and decided you are the one. Then yes it is public record. Fact is your example makes no sense and is a weak argument at best and I think you know it.

As I remember(always faulty as I get older)they decided the audit needed to be done. They chose that business/person best suited professionally to do this then hired them. One would hope these simple actions were taken. If so then you live with the info given to you and move forward. Again if they did not like the results they have the opportunity to speak out but not the right to hide it if they do not like what was said. I can think of no reason to hide the report.

MWMI, they're not hiding THE report; it's a rough draft that is not complete per the parameters of the agreement. I guess I've missed you consistently moving to have AB city council executive sessions held in public.

Turnow, yeah, I am. The code is huge. I totally disagree with you. It would be like hiring a bicycle mechanic to work on my car, imho.

And Willis wasn't commissioner yet.

Wasn't aware a report publicly requested done for the benefit of the public was the same as executive session. Really you know better than that. I'm dumbfounded you would even consider that a valid argument/comeback. Fact is blacking out a report rough or not is hiding. Pretty simple really. Rough or not if its released it should have been released whole or not at all.

I don't pretend to know any more of the details than have been provided.

However, executive sessions are allowable for personnel issues or contract (eg property purchase) negotiations. Those issues frequently solicit outside advice. The planning department problems are alleged to be all about personnel issues.

It doesn't sound improper to me for the elected officials to get that outside advice without reading about it in the newspaper first.

The commissioners are accountable to me. I want them to read the report, understand its recommendations, then tell me what the problem is and what they're going to do about it. I don't feel the need to know every piece of anecdotal information which they use to develop their plans.

I would hope that their plans aren't 40 redacted pages followed by a "There is no problem. Everything is fine. Please return to your business." But I find that unlikely given that they elected to spend $20,000 for the audit. It doesn't cost 20 large to sweep stuff under the rug.

If that was the case then it would not have needed to be released at all. The way I remember it (memory disclaimer again) it was an audit of the performance of the department as a whole not of individual employees therefore not subject to being held back or edited. And your more trusting than me I guess. I want to see the report, hear the response then see what action is taken.

If you wanted an audit of the City of Aberdeen building department, would you explicitly prohibit the auditors from looking at any personnel issues they might find?

If not, would you be comfortable with the legal risk to the city that releasing their findings without prior review implies?

"I understand, but disagree with what the plaintiff is saying. I was surprised that the audit report said that Brian Shea is a no-good lyin' pig-stealin'* grifter. Yes, we paid for the report, and yes we authorized its release to the media, but it's not the official position of the council, and I think the plaintiff's request for $1m is excessive, your honor."

*as far as I know, Mr Shea has never stolen any pigs.

In sticking with the pig theme I believe your grasping at straws.

I'm done wallowing in this filth.

bacon really does go with everything.

I do not know the specifics of this situation but there is a tradition in local governments of commissioning independent audits, research papers, reports, et al, and then when the commissioned report is completed and submitted per contract specifications and the money for the report is then paid and the contract closed, to then delay the release of that report indefinitely if it is embarrassing or otherwise not to the liking of the governing body by calling it a draft and promising release, which may or may not come at some future undefined date. This tactic for instance has been used by Ocean Shores in the past to delay release of an independent report to the public until after a vote on the issue has been taken and the public is denied the opportunity to form an opinion based on the same information afforded the council members. (In other words, they knew the majority of the public would not agree with their decision if they were privy to the same information).

Again, I am not at all clear if this is a similar situation here but am merely pointing out that there is valid cause for healthy skepticism on the part of the newspaper and the public as the release of information is postponed.

I think the newspaper is doing its job holding public officials accountable to the extent possible under the law, i.e. it starts to smell funny when you start delaying the release of an independent audit for months on end when the audit is functionally complete as submitted per the public contract. The funny factor is increased when the report is released only when the county's hand is forced and has to comply with state open records law. The fact that the report looks like something you would get from the CIA does nothing to mitigate suspicion. This is only logical and, I would think to any rational person, to be expected. Which begs the question, why all the games?

That raises an interesting question. Has the contract for this audit been accepted as complete and the bill paid?

I can find no record in any of the county meeting minutes (here: http://www.co.grays-harbor.wa.us/gh_minutes/index.asp ) that the county ever "formally accepted" the report in any way or form. My records request shows it appeared via e-mail to the commissioners with only one county employee e-mailing back and asking for more time to offer up comments on the report.

I wrote an article on Jan. 4 here talking about the money the county did pay on the report: (http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2010/01/04/local_news/doc4b40476f9e731981656977.txt):

In August, the commissioners authorized spending up to $20,000 for a third-party to conduct the review. In October, the commissioners signed a contract with the code council. The county and most government entities uses the building code written by the code council for its building permits.

Then-County Commissioner Bob Beerbower voted against the audit, calling it a waste of money. He also expressed displeasure that a third-party review would be done by folks that the Planning & Building Department work with all the time.

By January, two specialists with the code council hosted a “kick off” meeting with the commissioners. But they did not return to actually do the review until the spring. In the interim, the commissioners authorized spending an additional $2,000 on the review. They also terminated the employment of Paul Easter, citing budget reasons.

The report was due in June.

“It’s amazing,” Wilson said. “I was running for office and it was an issue and we thought we might have been able to even get something before the election was over, and, well that didn’t work, obviously. … What I think happened is time went on and we’d have a little bit of back and forth with them but very little. It really wasn’t very much.”

Budget Director Rose Elway said Monday that despite the funding authorizations for the extra $2,000, the county has only paid $4,500 to the code council so far.

To slightly clarify. The International Codes have been adopted by the WA state legislature and every city and county is required to enforce the state adopted codes within their jurisdictions.

During the 1990s, as my memory serves (always a dubious prospect), the three major "model code" groups in the USA unified their codes into the International group of codes.

If it hasn't yet been paid for, doesn't that kind of support the argument that it's a draft? i.e. a work in progress?

In the public sector (not within the government) I've been the recipient of numerous audits and have performed a few audits. The procedure for doing this is quite straight forward. The audit team comes in, checks files, interviews those deemed necessary to the audit (both within and outside the entity being audited), and then the information is reviewed and formulated by the audit members into a report format. The report is then completed in full in a findings format and forwarded for action to the entity being audited.

Once the audit report is received, the findings are reviewed for necessary corrective action. If there are any questions or disagreements with the audit findings, those are brought to the attention of the audit members for any clarification. Any changes made resulting from such questions/clarification are then made as an addendum to the original report.

Payment always occurred upon initial receipt of the audit report. It is possible that government procedures differ from this, but it is not at all clear as to why that would be the case.

You are correct. Counties and cities have no discretion. They were required to adopt the International Building Codes once they were adopted by the State.

Without reading the report, I can't say whether the portions which were redacted are exempt from disclosure or not. However, after reading the article today, it appears that Stew Menefee, the County Prosecutor, is justifying the redactions on the basis of this statute:

"RCW 42.56.280
Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, intra-agency memorandums.

"Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memorandums in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended are exempt under this chapter, except that a specific record is not exempt when publicly cited by an agency in connection with any agency action."

If that is so, it may have been better to simply not release any of the draft, and to wait until the final draft was ready.

You can't just rely on the RCW. If you did, then it would appear that a wide swath of items would qualify to follow under this exemption. And that's just not so. It is a very narrowly defined exemption, thanks to a number of court rulings. The Attorney General's Office has all of the information up on their Web site on the open public records act and the open public meetings act to help the regular person make sense of the law.
http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernment/InternetManual/Chapter2.aspx

2 Specific Exemptions from Disclosure

Deliberative Process (Preliminary Drafts, Notes, Recommendations, Intra-Agency Memoranda)

Statutory Provision: Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memorandums in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended [are exempt from disclosure] except that a specific record shall not be exempt when publicly cited by an agency in connection with any agency action. RCW 42.56.280.

See generally Section 7.3(4), Public Records Act Deskbook: Washington’s Public Disclosure and Open Public Meetings Laws (Greg Overstreet, ed.) (Wash. State Bar Assoc. 2006) (available for purchase); WAC 44-14-06002(4).

Preliminary drafts or recommendations may be withheld by an agency but only if they pertain to the agency's deliberative process and show the exchange of opinions within an agency before it reaches a decision or takes an action. The purpose of this exemption severely limits its scope. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. University of Wash., 125 Wn.2d 243, 256, 884 P.2d 592 (1994); Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 580 P.2d 246 (1978). Its purpose is to "protect the give and take of deliberations necessary to formulation of agency policy." Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, at 123; Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. University of Wash., at 256.

The test to determine whether a record is covered by this exemption has been summarized by the Supreme Court as follows:

In order to rely on this exemption, an agency must show that the records contain predecisional opinions or recommendations of subordinates expressed as part of a deliberative process; that disclosure would be injurious to the deliberative or consultative function of the process; that disclosure would inhibit the flow of recommendations, observations, and opinions; and finally, that the materials covered by the exemption reflect policy recommendations and opinions and not raw factual data on which a decision is based. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. University of Wash., 125 Wn.2d at 256. It is not, however, required that documents be prepared by subordinates to be exempt. ACLU v. City of Seattle, 121 Wn. App. 544, 552, 89 P.3d 295 (2004).

The exemption applies only to documents that are part of the deliberative or policy-making process; records about implementing policy are not covered. Cowles Publishing v. City of Spokane, 69 Wn. App. 678, 849 P.2d 1271 (1993), review denied, 122 Wn.2d 1013 (1993). For this reason, inter-agency (as opposed to intra-agency) discussions probably are not covered by this exemption. Columbian Publishing Co. v. City of Vancouver, 36 Wash. App. 25, 671 P.2d 280 (1983).

Matters that are factual, or that are assumed to be factual for discussion purposes, must be disclosed. Brouillet v. Cowles Publishing Co., 114 Wn.2d 788, 791 P.2d 526 (1990); Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 580 P.2d 246 (1978) (description of a taxpayer's home by a field assessor treated as fact by agency appraisers). Thus, unless disclosure would reveal or expose the deliberative process, as distinct from the facts used to make a decision, the exemption does not apply. Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, at 133. Moreover, once the policies or recommendations are implemented, those recommendations, drafts and opinions cease to be protected under this exemption. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. University of Wash., 125 Wn.2d 243, 257, 884 P.2d 592 (1994). An evaluation of a real property site requested by a city attorney was exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process exemption where it was cited as the basis for a final action. Overlake Fund v. City of Bellevue, 60 Wn. App. 787, 810 P.2d 507 (1991), appeal after remand, 70 Wn. App. 789, 855 P.2d 706, review denied, 123 Wn.2d 1009 (1994) (study ultimately withheld on other grounds). Subjective evaluations are not exempt under this exemption if they are treated as raw factual data and not subject to further deliberation and consideration. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. University of Wash., 125 Wn.2d at 256-57; Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d at 134.

Case example: A public agency conducts an internal review of a specific problem. A report is prepared consisting of an overview of the problem, information collected or reviewed, and recommendations for policy changes.

Resolution: The recommendations for policy changes are the only parts of the report likely to be exempt, unless the agency can show that the remainder of the report contains information that is inextricably intertwined with the recommendation. The agency must show that release of the factual or discussion portions would be the same as releasing the recommendations. This situation seldom exists and, for that reason, an agency must usually disclose parts of predecisional memos before it makes a final decision.

There's your nub, right there. As I understand the situation this is the exact exemption involved.

Steven,

I agree that the burden would be on the County to show that the exemption applies here. It seems like a stretch to me, that all of the redactions have to do with recommendations, but without knowing what was redacted, I won't comment.

Have you seen the Daily World Article released today on this?

This is consistent with my understanding.

Again, the commissioners could have had a deputy prosecuting attorney collect and analyze the complaints which precipitated the contract with the ICC. The only relevant questions relative to complaints of building code enforcement are 1) was the code faithfully enforced as adopted by the state legislature and board of commissioners, and 2) was the code enforcement staff polite and respectful in enforcing the code.

Folks complaining about building codes is nothing new.

Lynn Kessler once called me a lunatic because the code, which she voted to adopt, required that a handrail be installed on a stairway leading from her home to the religious shrine gazebo she imported from Southeast Asia. She refused to install a handrail.

Of course Kessler also refused to improve Kessler LN in accordance with a commitment she made in writing when subdividing her property in the 1980s.

Thanks, Steven, for your reporting of this matter.

The building code was not the only subject of this audit, violations of the subdivision codes also fell under this report and this is where a great many of the problems came in.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I wonder if anyone has complained about the county's illegal imposition of impact fees, as in taking land and cash as a condition of subdivision such approval.

I also wonder how the ICC staff are qualified to investigate administration of land use regulations.

It was, reportedly, the ever witless Paul Easter who recommended to the commissioners that they contract with the ICC for the so called "audit" of the Planning and Building Dept.

Eventually, thankfully, the commissioners realized that the gutless and witless Easter had no business managing anything, and eliminated his unnecessary position.

Upon the resignation of Mike Daniels, a competent and pragmatic manager, the commissioners narrowed down Daniel's successor to a seasoned, very competent, completely ethical long time county government administrator, and Easter. Dixon was supporting the appointment of the seasoned, competent county administrator; Dan Wood was supporting Easter; and the congenitally witless Beerbower couldn't decide. Wood and Easter shared religious predilections.


Filing into the commissioners meeting room, for the commission meeting during which Daniel's successor would be named, Beerbower turned to Wood (I have on the authority of someone present) and said "I'll second any motion you make". Thus begot Easter's incompetent tenure as Dir. of Public Services, at a cost of about $100,000. per year, a position created in the mid-1990s to provide supervision over incompetent Planning Director Kimura, whom the commissioners were reluctant to discharge so near to his retirement date.

The ICC is an organization that administers the compilation of the building, plumbing, mechanical, fire and other codes which have become the standards throughout most of the USA, as well as other countries. The organization has only peripheral expertise in "planning", the county division which I understand also generated complaints which precipitated the commissioners decision to contract for an audit.

The commissioners, upon Easter's advice, as I have learned, really blew it on this one.

There are, it seems to me (with 25 years experience in GHC building and zoning code enforcement and administration), that when confronted with a complaint the only questions the commissioners, or mayor, need to answer are 1) was the law faithfully enforced, 2) did the complainant receive good service, and 3) was the complainant treated with respect throughout the process?

It is generally gutless and incompetent elected officials, often advised by a gutless, incompetent appointed administrator, who call in outside entities to assess the performance of their subordinate departments.

The whole "audit" thing would be a joke if it weren't so pathetic.

I know Willis wasn't in office when the decision was made to contract with the ICC, but she did campaign ignorantly parroting Mark Doyle's complaints about the Planning and Building Division. Anyone whose been in the code enforcement business in GHC knows that Mark Doyle is amongst the most prominent outlaws in GHC, when it comes to complying with building and zoning code requirements.

This "audit" rigmarole is what we, the largely uninformed, disinterested electorate, get for electing incompetent, gutless commissioners.

While I'm ranting I also note that Planning Dir. Shea has no problem with illegally exacting "impact fees" and "land" from subdivision, and other development permit, applicants. At least as of 2005, impact fees, under WA state law, could not be exacted unless the governmental entity was "planning" under the state's "Growth Management Act", which GHC does not. None-the-less, former Planning Director Kimura and County Engineer Esses, some years back, concocted a system of illegally exacting land and cash from developers.

If you're interested in the subject send me a private message and I will send you evidence.

As of 2003, AWC advised Montesano that impact fees were appropriate, provided the impact was demonstrable and proximate (e.g. impacts to the storm water utility)

Storm water utilities were, as I recall, specifically approved through state legislation. Impact fees are another subject. Even jurisdictions planning under the "Growth Management Act" must effect "impact fees" through legislation, which GHC has never done. Kimura and Esses cooked up the system of exaction, without legislative approval.

Here's a discussion of the subject relative to a 2004 GHC appeal of a City of Elma subdivision approval for your entertainment.

Facinating reading.

The hearing examiner found in the city's favor, except for one specific finding relative to the capacity of the country road to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the subdivision.

Planning director Shea's response to the staff report, during the appeal hearing, was that the county would impose the land and cash exactions as a condition of it's road access approval, regardless of the hearing examiner's determination. Some day someone is going to wise up, sue the county, and realize a pay day.


I realize it is a esoteric matter, but believe also that it it is a matter where an uninformed electorate has permitted their local government to violate the law for years.

Folks often said to me "just tell me what you want". To which I responded "it doesn't matter what I want, it only matters what the law requires", and presented them a copy of the relevant law.

You are correct, Turnow, that impact fees are not legal in Grays Harbor County because we are one of the few counties that opted not to plan under the Growth Management Act. We are allowed to charge "connection fees" for new construction but not impact fees.

I understand that Judge Edwards has ordered the "audit" report and the "draft"must be released.

That does not surprise me at all.

From late 1995 to, at least, early 2001, this was the Building Division's "Statement of Purpose". It was adopted through a county commission resolution, at the request of the building official, and used to be posted on the county's web site.

* Remain always mindful that our customers are our employers
* Provide excellent and courteous customer service in fulfilling all department responsibilities
* Treat all customers with absolute respect, even when such respect is not reciprocated
* Provide code interpretations that are consistent
* Enforce only such regulations that have been properly adopted
* Maintain an arms length relationship with those doing business with the department
* Never accept gifts, no matter how insignificant, from those doing business with the department
* Strive to make our coworkers jobs more pleasant and fulfilling for them

Those are great rules to work by.

I would imagine the commission that conducted the audit would be obliged to release the information that supports the findings in the audit. Upon the uncensored release of the audit that is. Or am I just imagining things?

I plan to read the entire "audit" report which the DW's Steven Friederich has generously linked in his report.

From Stevens report:



The difference between now and "how popular and well received the County’s permitting process was years ago", relative to the building permitting and inspection end of things, is that "years ago" the Building Official was experienced in permitting, plan reviewing, and inspecting. Since those "years ago" the Planning Director has also served as the Building Official. Which was the situation during the Kimura era, before "years ago", which resulted in a similar pattern of complaints of the Building Division and ultimately the designation of a building code enforcement professional as Building Official. Thus followed five years of a high level of customer satisfaction.

I know the county's senior building was there "years ago" and understands what it takes to maintain customer satisfaction. Brian Shea, I think, does not.

Good reason to sue to try and keep the report hidden, huh?

Without letting the Commissioners completely off the hook, I wonder how long the GOP are going to get away with blaming the Commissioners for trying to keep the report secret. Everything I've read suggests the Commissioners were trying to get the report out and the attorney redacted it, not the Commissioners. When they tried to get it out again, the employees got the injuction, not the Commissioners. The County then successfully argued to get the report released against the wishes of their employees. But, the knuckledraggers will continue to slap the Commissioners with it. How long will the Daily World let them get away with it? How long will the Commissioners?

Such is life.

The Commissioners hired Brian Shea. Ultimately, having read most of the pathetic "audit" report, I remain convinced that it's a management problem; and he Commissioner's, unfortunately, are the ultimate GHC managers.

"I know the county's senior building was there "years ago" and understands what it takes to maintain customer satisfaction. Brian Shea, I think, does not."


But his union work force think he's great.

"Union employees in the Grays Harbor County Planning & Building Department have issued a letter of complete confidence in their department head, Brian Shea."

http://www.thedailyworld.com/articles/2010/03/12/local_news/doc4b9a8bd9302cd547589851.txt

Interesting.

I just started, and note they don't understand the difference between "forward" and "foreword".

And that there is no Portland County in OR which includes the city of Portland.

I must agree with whichever commissioner opined that the report reads as though written by a Jr. High student.

Darren Meyers and Ravi Shah, the two primary authors of the report seem to have fondness for cliche.

I was referring to the Commissioner's intent to release or not release the report.

I have to say that I find the report fairly innocuous relative to the efforts to withhold it. In fact, the efforts of the commissioners to withhold the document speak volumes more to me about management than the fairly broad generalizations contained within the report itself.

In the spirit of broad generalization and insufficient citation ...

Having been through a single-family permit and building process last year in Mason County, and several years before that as the general and owner-builder, I can say that Mason, which has a fairly negative reputation with contractors, is prompt and professional, with a surprisingly good two-week or less turn-around on plan approval, consistency in its application of code interpretation, and field inspectors who adhere to approved plans with cited codes and provided only a few late surprises (to be fair these were mostly due to my inexperience). While Mason seems a bit more strict in its code interpretation than Thurston or Grays Harbor, based on the anecdotal comments of subs and contractors I know or have spoken to recently, it is at least consistently so. Knowing what to expect is everything. If you're going to make me spray paint the six inches of exposed gas pipe with flat black paint before issuing the final, well, I did appreciate the heads up.

In contrast, field inspectors overruling or re-interpreting approved and stamped plans would be a total nightmare and a two-month-plus turn-around on approval of pre-engineered and stamped single-family plans seems long. These are anecdotal comments I've heard from two experienced generals in Grays Harbor relating their experience within the last year (for what it's worth). They remembered the good old days of Turnow, and noted they now realize how good those days were compared to now, even if they did not fully appreciate them at the time ;-))

I also wonder to what extent political intervention has led to inconsistent interpretation and application of code in Grays Harbor.

It does seem that Shea is placed in an impossible position with too many hats. But hey, we all want smaller government, right? Decreased service should be expected shouldn't it? If we don't want to pay for the necessary staff then ... although I suppose that department actually makes money for the county after salaries and expenses are factored.

In some ways, I would see this report as a real opportunity, a potential mandate, for p & b to leverage resources to better serve its customers. A thoughtful, measured response with a few rebuttals and a "we will take this to heart" and make improvements to better serve our customers and the local economy, yada, yada, yada, with an attached roadmap for service improvement and consistency would seem a fair response that would put this to rest. Naahhhhhh ... dive into the bunker instead ... stall and protract what would have been a minor footnote into a nice little mudhole ... :))

Still, this will fade away fairly quickly from the public eye I expect and the thing people will remember is the commissioner's stalling and a redacted report that looked like something from the national security archives. I'd frame the first page and hang it on the newsroom wall.

p.s. I do appreciate TDW going to bat and spending the legal fees necessary to have this released. I think it was the right thing to do on principle alone.

Mike Daniels, who in late 1995 when the building division under Kimura's supervision generated lots of complaints, asked Turnow to take over as Building Official. Daniels was a smart enough manager to understand that, so long as his time wasn't wasted fielding building division complaints, it was best to not micromanage the operation and to run interference with the commissioners.

One of the Turnow All Stars was lured to work for Aberdeen at a substantial raise, two left as a direct result of Easter's hiring, and one remains. We did have a five year run with very high customer satisfaction.

Relative to the "audit" report, a number of things recommended are already being done, most notably pre-construction conferences, where developers are able to sit down with a rep from every relevant division (generally building, planning, environmental health, and engineering); and a "one stop" permit application (building, land use, road access, and environmental health) through permitting technicians.

I agree with the report that the planning director, regardless of whom it might be, should not be serving as building official.

Problems, to the extent they exist, result from management actions or inaction, either at the commission level or at the planning director level, or both.

There is a story related to me by a man who owns a house in Shafer Meadows about a corrupt building official, a contractor who I will not name who basically did not follow plans and yet had his work approved, a private engineer who reviewed what was done and said that any kind of an earthquake and it would fall, an earthquake and indeed the house did fall, lawsuits etc.

Your name was not connected but I have wondered, was this before you were hired? I never really had a timeline because when I met him the house was already reconstructed.

One man's story is just one man's story. The building department did have a checkered past according to people I worked with through the years.

You make a lot of loose accusations based on little to no facts. Apparently you only remember what fits your preconceived notion. The articles in TDW clearly state the commissioners wanted the information released and that the attorney for the county commission, Jim Baker, was at the court hearing pushing for release of the information. It's ridiculous to thank TDW for this as if they, and they alone, were fighting for its release when, in fact, so were the commissioners.

That house, as I recall, was built in the 1980s. It was damaged by an earthquake in the '90s because the roof framing structure was not adequate to support the concrete tile roof which was applied. The house did not "fall".

I don't know anything about any "corruption". My understanding is that it was a matter of an inadequate plan review, rather than anything untoward.

I like how they call the phone system antiquated, then suggest PDAs. Maybe next year they could suggest pagers.

According to articles/quotes the commissioners were against the release of the draft report which was a stupid move regardless of the quality and accuracy of the report. They should have simply let that one out. My guess, and its only a guess, is that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the draft and final version. This is a mole hill turned into a mountain by all of those that witheld or attempted to withold the report. Personally I don't find the report that scathing at all and agree with some of the commissioners assessment of its quality. However IMHO the original witholding by them is what caused the uproar and ridiculous conspiracy theories by the usual suspects.

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.

You've said this several times and I'm curious about it. It seems to me that it is standard procedure to hire outside firms for audits.

The basic goals were to find out if the codes were being applied correctly and consistently, and if there were problems with customer service.

The contract with the ICC called for them to interview the people who were chronic complainers, compare their complaints to what was in the official record, to interview staff, and then to pull random files of other projects to see if there were problems with any of them. This could include interviewing the folks involved in those projects or possibly sending out surveys to random people who had gotten permits in the last few years.

Then, of course, the report should have consisted of an analysis of the information obtained along with suggestions to improve services, if warranted.

Anyway, how would they have done all this without hiring outside consultants to do it? Just curious.

Is there a link to the report? I don't read the Daily Hurl anymore, so am not aware if a link to the report was published or not.

Its available on the GHC homepage at www.co.grays-harbor.wa.us

Well, what I would have done if I was a commissioner or the planning director, is to ask for a written complaint, specifically citing the specific code provision(s) which the complainant believes was improperly imposed. I would then ask the responsible staff to respond in writing explaining what specifically the relevant code requirements and an explanation of what requirement was enforced.

Complaints of rudeness are another thing.

Here's how it was done "years ago."

If a customer questioned a code requirement the Building Official would review the code requirement to ensure it was actually a requirement. The building official then issued a written judgment in which the complainant was notified of further appeal procedures.

An example which comes to mind. A local plumber objected to the requirement to connect floor drains to the septic system and asked the BO to review the requirement. The plumbing code defined floor drains as "fixtures" and required all fixtures to be connected to the sewage disposal system. Thus, the BO issue a determination, citing the various relevant provisions of the plumbing code, and affirmed that floor drains must be connected to the septic system.

Keep in mind that the plumbing code is written by committees composed of plumbing industry professionals, including engineers, manufacturers, trades persons, and other with expertise. Likewise the other codes. The committees then present proposed code provisions or changes to the annual ICC convention, which either adopts or rejects the proposed change.

Anytime there was a disagreement amongst the building division staff as to the interpretation of a particular code provision, the division staff would meet to discuss the provision, with each expressing their interpretation. The BO would often contact the ICC, which authors the codes, to ask for the ICC interpretation. The BO would then render the interpretation to writing, distribute to the staff, and place a copy in a policy manual. There were times when the BO overruled the staff, all of whom knew they were at complete liberty to express their opinions. More than once one or more of the staff indicated their displeasure at the BO's determination but acknowledged their responsibility to adhere to the BO's interpretation determination.

Again, it's not rocket science. The codes are fairly explicit and not really hard to understand, though much of the code's content is there for use by engineers and architects and thus is not readily understood by us not schooled in the disciplines; but those technical design provisions are rarely at issue.

My conclusion, after 25 years in the code enforcement business, is that, though some folks object to codes on principle, all most reasonable people ask is that they be provided with good service during the permitting and inspection processes, that the code requirements do not change from day to day or from customer to customer, and that they be treated with respect during the process. It's really not that difficult.

Also keep in mind that there are outlaws who consistently try to avoid complying with the codes and who are able to get the ear of a commissioner.

The county also has a Building Code Advisory Council which, being composed of local design professionals and trades persons, is far more qualified to review the building division operations than is the ICC, as is quite obvious from its piece of crap "report" which they copied.

There were claims that using local people on a local board would just result in a biased report.

I have no idea why you would think those other things weren't being done. They were. Repeatedly. And often repeatedly with the same customers on the same issues.

And there were too many times when customers were being verbally abusive, including racial epithets, and physically threatening to staff. Even the most professional person would have a hard time working with individuals using those tactics.

The situation had become so ugly that an outside review seemed like the best option. Unfortunately, the ICC disappointed.

I was unaware of charges of abusive behavior; but I am, of course, far away. However, there is an easy way to deal with an employee issuing "racial epithets", which have been substantiated. You fire them on the spot. And as for verbal abuse, if substantiated, one instructs the employees to clean up their acts with a documented oral warning, followed by a written warning, followed by discharge.

My sense from the information I've received, though from a distant point of vantage, is that the normal carping about the planning and building division was allowed by the commissioners to get out of hand.

Again, it's a management problem. Managers are hired and elected to deal with such matters.

So we just simply disagree. No problem.

I thought I read funky suggesting there were accusations of verbal abuse and racial epathets from customers to staff.

Oh. Well that is quite different.

There was a planner of East Indian nationality working at the planning division during the late 1990s until 2006 or so who was subject of very occasional ignorant bigoted remarks from customers.

Though I can't figure how that factors in to the need for an "audit".

One of your "outlaws" no doubt complained about the "uppity" brown person.

You are, of course, exactly right.

It wasn't so much the "outlaws", though, as the ignorant bigots who complained that they could not understand the planner. To which I generally responded, "you're not listening".

English is, of course, routinely spoken in India, particularly in Bangalore, the Silicon Vally of India, from where the fellow hailed. He is these days happily working as a planner for a Thurston County local government.

Folks making such a claim do not understand the relationship between the BCAC to the building division.

Well, there's the problem. We speak Murrican 'round here.

Huh? You totally misunderstood or I wasn't clear. It is not the employees doing this, it is the customers.

There have been cases of staff being called things like "sand n_____", being surrounded by people following them to their cars while calling them names and making threatening gestures, people contacting commissioners complaining about having to work with a person with an accent, as just a few examples.

These are just people trying to do their jobs and even if you don't like them personally or don't like the information they're giving you, that doesn't give anyone the right to do these types of things. Some of the people who have done some of these things have also been some of the vocal critics of the planning/building department.

ETA: Oh, I read now that this has already been clarified. I guess I should read all posts before I respond.

The behavior you describe is likely a criminal act. Perhaps the department supervisor, the commissioners, sheriff's department and prosecutor should respond accordingly.

Murrican and Spanish.

But, again, how does the matter of the threats relate to the "audit"?

It seems to be a Class B Felony.

Just that some of the impetus for the audit was related to things that, in many ways, fall more under customer service issues. And it is difficult to assess that when some of the people complaining about lack of customer service have been guilty of their own bad behavior. Thus, chicken and egg issues.

Perhaps. Worse threats to a commissioner just resulted in a recommendation to get a restraining order though.