"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.