You are exactly right. Even though I've heard plenty of irritation with Brian, it has never been regarding misconduct.

Remember when the Bush Administration fired a bunch of Federal Attorneys? There was an outcry from some regardingthe politics of the firings. Many in The Wrong Wing simply said, "They serve at the pleasure of the President and he wants them gone, they're gone. It's not an issue."

Well, if there is any politics here, and I don't think there is, it is simply the politics of finally getting the votes to respond to critics. Why did it take so long to get a second vote?... or, a third?

Making people follow the rules will create a lot of critics. Do you want those positions to do their jobs or be popular? Do you want them to have to ask the County Commissioner if it is okay to do what the rules say? These two positions are made to attract critics and some will whine to their commissioners.

Then what?

A big part of the problem are the rules themselves.

Industry bigwigs lobby the code council to get their gizmo accepted as the law of the land. The resulting document ("the code") is a copyright protected work.

Do any of you know of a similar example, in which you can't know what the law is unless you buy a copy?

Pierce county now conducts airborne sweeps to find any violations of building rules. 90% of the findings are small accessory structures built by the homeowner between 120 and 1000sf in which the public safety risk is nonexistent and the price of the permit exceeds the cost to construct.

I see building departments in exactly the same way I see the RIAA or MPAA. Law enforcement for a profit.

Building permits should be required for dwelling units and commercial structures and remodels with meaningful structural implications only.

Let's just agree to disagree. You think he was the bee's knees. I don't. You're disappointed he's gone. I'm surprised it took so long. Good people can come to different conclusions. I think, if a change is going to be made, it was handled properly. There is a culture right now to throw turds at anything government... anything. 10 years ago this would have been a page 3 issue. 10 years from now, it would be the 6th article on the website. Right now, it is simply a good accelerant for flinging feces on the campfire.

In Aberdeen we removed six rotten panel of T11 without permits, replaced them, were told by Aberdeen to take them off to inspect the work, talked them into taking only a couple off, bought a building permit, had the inspection with no problems and finally finished a small project that had no structural implications. It is irritating but the buyer of the building inherited no rot.

I spent a whole career dealing with inspections and rules and they never failed to tick me off but, as one inspector told me, if YOU were buying this product wouldn't you have liked all the rules enforced.

In my dealings with Brian I always felt he was fair. In watching his work I never felt differently about the man behind the job. I know people who, if they could, would fire him immediately. I am sure there are developers that are similar minded but I am sure he did his job fairly. If he was in fact fired for ticking people off one has to wonder about the reason because his job, by it's nature, makes it to impossible to do anything else.

In my opinion the fairest and most diplomatic of the bunch just got forced to resign. Things change with people. Trying to do to much with too few people can make people act different. Perhaps this or something else is the reason but being fired for doing one's job sucks, should that be the case, is as low as it gets.

Moving on it appears that the temporary picks are good ones. Brian will find other employment. Not knowing any more I have to give Carter the benefit of the doubt but only with a big question mark in my mind about it.

It is all we can do. There won't be anything more coming out about it to substantiate suspicions or whatever questions we might have.

I don't necessarily disagree with your input, but I have underlined one sentence I'd like to add my own comment.
I think most performance reviews are conducted on a yearly basis with each manager. However, it is imperative the immediate supervisor of each manager provide ongoing input along the way if the manager is not attaining agreed upon goals or working below standards expected. Usually, but not always, such input is documented and placed into the manager's official file for review purposes in preparing the yearly performance review. The point here is that the manager should have absolutely no surprises from the supervisor upon receiving the annual review. That's what bothers me about what I have read of this hasty resignation/firing. There apparently WAS a surprise, and that leads me to suspect that the manager was not made aware of perceived shortcomings by his supervisor. Either that, or he had been so informed previously during the past year, but had not responded to the extent required by the supervisor. For me, it would be of interest to know which way it came about, particularly since the supervisor is now up for re-election.

When a commissioner has to spend hours and hours, month after month, helping people get the information they need from the building department in order to complete their projects because of a lack of consistency and customer service from that department, it should be no surprise when enough is enough.

Weren't these departments part of the cutbacks in the County workforce?

The next sentence in my quote is "Either that, or he had been so informed previously during the past year, but had not responded to the extent required by the supervisor."


My point being, the yearly performance review should not come as a surprise to the person whose performance is being reviewed. It could very well be that his shortcomings had been documented and called to his attention on numerous occasions, and then it sure would not be a surprise to receive something less than a satisfactory performance review. If that's what happened, then he apparently thought he wouldn't be fired, or he would have resigned sooner.