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.