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.