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.