# Building Officials and Inspectors don't have Immunity



## Uncle Bob

Apparently, many Building Officials and Inspectors don't believe they can be prosecuted;

*City inspector gets 5 years for taking bribes*

June 15, 2010|By William Lee, Chicago Tribune reporter

A suspended Chicago building inspector convicted of taking bribes and later lying to federal agents was sentenced to five years in prison Tuesday by a judge.

Chicago seems to have at least one case every year.

And, Cleveland, Ohio;

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/04/former_cleveland_building_insp.html

New Jersy,

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2009/06/jersey_city_building_inspector_1.html

Florida;

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/52683022.html

By the way; it's the FBI that's going after the Officials and Inspectors.

And, there are a lot more. One guy had 19 years with the city and lost his pension.

There should be more job openings; ya think?  

Most of what I've come across except a crane inspector in Ny; involved extortion and/or bribery, but, No, you don't have immunity!

Uncle Bob


----------



## mark handler

*In texas*

For a "fee," a city code inspector and a permit clerk allegedly let six used-car lot owners operate in Brownsville without passing building inspections.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4406359.html

*Building inspectors in bribery investigation revealed*

 Reported by: Brian Collister

Email: BrianCollister@woaitv.com

Last Update: 3/16 7:29 am

SAN ANTONIO - We've now uncovered the names of two City of San Antonio building inspectors who are the target of an on-going bribery investigation.

One of the inspectors in trouble is Ernest A. Martinez, a building inspection supervisor and a ten year veteran of the city's planning and development department.

The other is George Moreno, a senior electrical inspector.

Both resigned last November after the city took steps to fire them after investigating a complaint they accepted bribes from contractors in exchange for approving work they did not inspect.

News Four WOAI Trouble Shooter Brian Collister tracked down Moreno at his downtown home and asked if the allegation is true.

“Did you do what they are accusing you of doing,” Collister asked.

George Moreno answered, “I don't know what they are accusing me of.”

Collister replied, “They're causing you of taking bribes.”

“That's not right,” Moreno told the reporter.

“That's not right - Meaning you didn't do it,” Collister clarified.

“Right,” Moreno said.

As for the other inspector, Ernest Martinez, we were unable to reach him.

There are still two more inspectors who are also being investigated, but they remain on the job at this time.

The criminal case is still being reviewed by the San Antonio Special Crimes Division and has not yet been forwarded to the district attorney's office.

Blog Cometary: Ernest A. Martinez that has been accused of taking bribes for inspection worked on at least one Mauro Padilla project, Springtime.

http://www.woai.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=808000@woai.dayport.com&navCatId=14


----------



## Uncle Bob

The closest I've come is;

having my life threatened twice;

my job threatened a few times by "Do you know who I am?", love those;

several threats to beat me up;

but, the closest I've come to a money offer, was a wallboard supervisor tried to put a $5.00 bill in my shirt pocket to pass a wallboard that wasn't finished, No way Jose.

I figure my licenses and certifications are worth at least half a million. Any job openings in Dubia? Never mind, I heard the don't fire, jail or sue you; they just cut your head off.

Uncle Bob


----------



## packsaddle

The FBI should be going after corruption happening on a larger scale.

The Federal Government, for example.


----------



## globe trekker

I had an individual; who was contracted by a developer to frame-up a foundation,  install the

steel reinforcement  [  that crappy wwf  / wwm ] and get it ready for an inspection, to offer

me $100.00 on the spot if I would approve the foundation inspection...   Yep, a whole

$100.00 dollars.   He was doing some serious begging to let the inspection pass.

It didn't!

As I was walking away from the lot, I simply told him "No thank you" and to call us back

when he had it ready for inspection.    That was one of the worst foundation inspections I

had seen  [ to that point  ].      I have since, ...seen worse!   

To me, there is no amount of money worth the price of my integrity.

.


----------



## globe trekker

Pack,

There aren't enough jails,  prisons,  courts or honest judges who will prosecute the guilty and

actually send them to prison for the entire time.

I see where Ms. Lohan got a whopping 13 days [ out of the 90 day sentence - "slap on the

wrist"  ]  for her recent misbehavings.

The legal system  [ i.e. - the Pay-to-Play  ] machine is alive an doing quite well in this country,

and it looks like it is only going to get better for the criminals and corrupt.

BTW, you're up late!

.


----------



## RickAstoria

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> Apparently, many Building Officials and Inspectors don't believe they can be prosecuted;*City inspector gets 5 years for taking bribes*
> 
> {-- SNIP --}
> 
> Uncle Bob


B.O.s do have some immunity but it isn't an absolute immunity to everything. B.O. isn't immune from murder, bribery, ect. That is malfeasance at best and down right criminal at worse.

B.O.s can not do just anything they want. They have limited immunity.

In Oregon,

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/030.html  - ORS 30.260 ~ ORS 30.300

Most particular sections of significance - ORS 30.260, ORS 30.265 and ORS 30.285. (and all applicable statutes section referenced - such as:

(4) “Public body” means:

      (a) A public body as defined in *ORS 174.109*;

      (b) Any nonprofit corporation that is organized and existing under ORS chapter 65 and that has only political subdivisions or municipal, quasi-municipal or public corporations in this state as members;

      © A private child-caring agency, as defined in ORS 418.205, that meets the criteria specified in ORS 278.322 (1)(a) and that receives more than 50 percent of its funding from the state for the purpose of providing residential treatment to children who have been placed in the care and custody of the state or that provides residential treatment to children more than half of whom have been placed in the care and custody of the state; or

      (d) A private, nonprofit organization that provides public transportation services if more than 50 percent of the organization’s funding for the purpose of providing public transportation services is received from governmental bodies.

 ORS 174.109 “Public body” defined. Subject to ORS 174.108, as used in the statutes of this state “public body” means state government bodies, local government bodies and special government bodies. [2001 c.74 §2]

[continues...]


----------



## RickAstoria

30.265 Scope of liability of public body, officers, employees and agents; liability in nuclear incident. (1) Subject to the limitations of ORS 30.260 to 30.300, every public body is subject to action or suit for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function or while operating a motor vehicle in a ridesharing arrangement authorized under ORS 276.598. *The sole cause of action for any tort of officers, employees or agents of a public body acting within the scope of their employment or duties and eligible for representation and indemnification under ORS 30.285 or 30.287 shall be an action against the public body only*. The remedy provided by ORS 30.260 to 30.300 is exclusive of any other action or suit against any such officer, employee or agent of a public body whose act or omission within the scope of the officer’s, employee’s or agent’s employment or duties gives rise to the action or suit. No other form of civil action or suit shall be permitted. If an action or suit is filed against an officer, employee or agent of a public body, on appropriate motion the public body shall be substituted as the only defendant. Substitution of the public body as the defendant does not exempt the public body from making any report required under ORS 742.400.

      (2) Every public body is immune from liability for any claim for injury to or death of any person or injury to property resulting from an act or omission of an officer, employee or agent of a public body when such officer, employee or agent is immune from liability.

      (3) Every public body and its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, or while operating a motor vehicle in a ridesharing arrangement authorized under ORS 276.598, are immune from liability for:

      (a) Any claim for injury to or death of any person covered by any workers’ compensation law.

      (b) Any claim in connection with the assessment and collection of taxes.

      © Any claim based upon the performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.

      (d) Any claim that is limited or barred by the provisions of any other statute, including but not limited to any statute of ultimate repose.

      (e) Any claim arising out of riot, civil commotion or mob action or out of any act or omission in connection with the prevention of any of the foregoing.

      (f) Any claim arising out of an act done or omitted under apparent authority of a law, resolution, rule or regulation that is unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable except to the extent that they would have been liable had the law, resolution, rule or regulation been constitutional, valid and applicable, unless such act was done or omitted in bad faith or with malice.

      (4) Subsection (1) of this section applies to any action of any officer, employee or agent of the state relating to a nuclear incident, whether or not the officer, employee or agent is acting within the scope of employment, and provided the nuclear incident is covered by an insurance or indemnity agreement under 42 U.S.C. 2210.

      (5) Subsection (3)© of this section does not apply to any discretionary act that is found to be the cause or partial cause of a nuclear incident covered by an insurance or indemnity agreement under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 2210, including but not limited to road design and route selection. [1967 c.627 §§2,3,10; 1969 c.429 §1; 1975 c.609 §12; 1977 c.823 §2; 1981 c.490 §4; 1985 c.731 §31; 1987 c.705 §7; 1991 c.861 §1; 2005 c.22 §19; 2007 c.803 §4]


----------



## RickAstoria

30.285 Public body shall indemnify public officers; procedure for requesting counsel; extent of duty of state; obligation for judgment and attorney fees. (1) The governing body of any public body *shall defend, save harmless and indemnify any of its officers, employees and agents, whether elective or appointive, against any tort claim or demand, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of duty.*

      (2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section *do not apply in case of **malfeasance** in office or **willful or wanton neglect of duty*.

      (3) If any civil action, suit or proceeding is brought against any state officer, employee or agent which on its face falls within the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, or which the state officer, employee or agent asserts to be based in fact upon an alleged act or omission in the performance of duty, the state officer, employee or agent may, after consulting with the Oregon Department of Administrative Services file a written request for counsel with the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall thereupon appear and defend the officer, employee or agent unless after investigation the Attorney General finds that the claim or demand does not arise out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of duty, or that the act or omission complained of amounted to malfeasance in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty, in which case the Attorney General shall reject defense of the claim.

      (4) Any officer, employee or agent of the state against whom a claim within the scope of this section is made shall cooperate fully with the Attorney General and the department in the defense of such claim. If the Attorney General after consulting with the department determines that such officer, employee or agent has not so cooperated or has otherwise acted to prejudice defense of the claim, the Attorney General may at any time reject the defense of the claim.

      (5) If the Attorney General rejects defense of a claim under subsection (3) of this section or this subsection, no public funds shall be paid in settlement of said claim or in payment of any judgment against such officer, employee or agent. Such action by the Attorney General shall not prejudice the right of the officer, employee or agent to assert and establish an appropriate proceedings that the claim or demand in fact arose out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of duty, or that the act or omission complained of did not amount to malfeasance in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty, in which case the officer, employee or agent shall be indemnified against liability and reasonable costs of defending the claim, cost of such indemnification to be a charge against the Insurance Fund established by ORS 278.425.

      (6) Nothing in subsection (3), (4) or (5) of this section shall be deemed to increase the limits of liability of any public officer, agent or employee under ORS 30.260 to 30.300, or obviate the necessity of compliance with ORS 30.275 by any claimant, nor to affect the liability of the state itself or of any other public officer, agent or employee on any claim arising out of the same accident or occurrence.

      (7) As used in this section, “state officer, employee or agent” includes district attorneys and deputy district attorneys, special prosecutors and law clerks of the office of district attorney who act in a prosecutorial capacity, but does not include any other employee of the office of district attorney or any employee of the justice or circuit courts whose salary is paid wholly or in part by the county. [1967 c.627 §7; 1975 c.609 §16; 1981 c.109 §5; 1981 c.913 §2; 1985 c.731 §22; 1987 c.763 §1; 2009 c.67 §11]


----------



## RickAstoria

30.287 Counsel for public officer; when public funds not to be paid in settlement; effect on liability limit; defense by insurer. (1) If any civil action, suit or proceeding is brought *against any officer, employee or agent of a local public body *which on its face falls within the provisions of ORS 30.285 (1), or *which the officer, employee or agent asserts to be based in fact upon an alleged act or omission in the performance of duty, the officer, employee or agent* may file a written request for counsel with the governing body of the public body. The governing body *shall thereupon engage counsel to appear and defend the officer, employee or agent* unless after investigation it is determined *that the claim or demand does not arise out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of duty, or that the act or omission complained of amounted to malfeasance in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty, *in which case the governing body shall reject defense of the claim.

      (2) *Any officer, employee or agent of a local public body against whom a claim within the scope of this section* is made *shall cooperate fully with the governing body and counsel in the defense of such claim.* If the counsel determines and certifies to the governing body that such officer, employee or agent has not so cooperated or has otherwise acted in prejudice of the defense of the claim, the governing body may at any time reject the defense of the claim.

      (3) If the governing body rejects defense of a claim under subsection (1) of this section, no public funds shall be paid in settlement of the claim or in payment of any judgment against such officer, employee or agent. Such action by the governing body shall not prejudice the right of the officer, employee or agent to assert and establish in an appropriate proceedings that the claim or demand in fact arose out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the performance of duty, or that the act or omission complained of did not amount to malfeasance in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty, in which case the officer, employee or agent shall be indemnified by the public body against liability and reasonable costs of defending the claim.

      (4) Nothing in subsection (1), (2) or (3) of this section shall be deemed to increase the limits of liability of any public officer, agent or employee under ORS 30.260 to 30.300, or relieve any claimant of the necessity of compliance with ORS 30.275, nor to affect the liability of the local public body itself or of any other public officer, agent or employee on any claim arising out of the same accident or occurrence.

      (5) The provisions of this section may be superseded to the extent that the claim against the public officer, employee or agent may be defended by any insurer, or may be subject under ORS 30.282 to agreement with the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, in which case the provisions of the policy of insurance or other agreement are applicable. [1975 c.609 §20; 1985 c.565 §3; 1989 c.1004 §1; 2009 c.67 §12]

This is what protects Building Officials, Inspectors and other public employees in the state of Oregon up to a point.

As you read, there is limited immunity BUT this isn't something that is completely unlimited or would allow an entity to act like a god and do whatever they feel. Although there is protection in some cases, it is not limitless. Some wrongs, you do pay the price for.


----------



## RJJ

It seems to many public officials are vaccinated with Teflon! I agree with pack! Start at the top. The others will get the message.


----------



## Coug Dad

There is a big difference between outright corruption and the apparent situation in Aspen, Colorado where the inspectors were indicted after the death of a family from carbon monoxide.  I have not heard of any allegations in that case other than the inspectors did not perform thorough inspections.  I have not heard of allegations of payoffs to ignore work and required inspections.


----------



## Uncle Bob

rick astoria,

*Four freaken pages?!*

You left out the legislation of the other 49 states; for crying out loud!

Sheez,

Uncle Bob


----------



## texas transplant

UB,

You asked for it, now we will probably get it.


----------



## mark handler

Homeowners: Atherton building department negligent

Couple says multimillion-dollar reconstruction is needed to make a new home safe and inhabitable

http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=7095

By Renee Batti

Almanac News Editor

When Kimberly Sweidy named the home she and her husband Raymie Stata were building in west Atherton Casa de Buena Esperanza -- House of Good Hope -- she by no means had rose-colored glasses on.

It was spring 2006. The house had been in the planning and construction process for about five years, it was nowhere near completion, and Ms. Sweidy was becoming increasingly convinced that the process had gone badly awry.

"In Spanish, esperar means to hope and to wait," she said in a recent interview when asked about the name.

The melding of the concepts of hope and waiting, she added, "embraces the cultural value of patience," and in mid-2006, she knew that she, her husband, and their two young daughters were going to have to call upon a deep store of patience -- not to mention fortitude -- to get them through the ordeal the home-construction project had turned into.

Now in the midst of a legal battle with her building contractor, Ms. Sweidy is also taking on the town of Atherton's building department for passing inspections and ultimately signing off on a multimillion-dollar house that the couple is having to pour millions more into to make structurally sound and repair the many problems they've discovered since moving into it in the summer of 2007.

Many if not most of those problems would have been flagged and prevented or fixed if department staff had not "failed to perform in a reasonable or competent manner," Ms. Sweidy said.

Ms. Sweidy and Mr. Stata have filed a claim against Atherton, protesting new building permit fees that the town is charging them to do the retrofitting and repair work necessary to make the house safe, including stabilization of the main house's foundation.

Ms. Sweidy is also calling for the firing of Building Official Mike Wasmann, who, she said, did a number of the inspections on the house.

"The need for these building permit fees are the direct result and consequence of the negligence, gross negligence, fraud and breach of duty ... of the (town's) building department, including its plan check, oversight and inspections," Ms. Sweidy, an attorney, wrote in a June 29 notice to town officials and council members.

"Further, the town employee with the most culpability, Mr. Mike Wasmann, is now the building official for (the town), in charge of oversight of the entire department," she wrote.

Outraged that the "dream home" her family had waited for years to inhabit is plagued by major structural deficiencies, inadequate plumbing and electrical work, and a host of other serious problems that need correcting, Ms. Sweidy told The Almanac, "They turned my dream home into a nightmare."

Is building official qualified?

Once the family had moved into the approximately 8,000-square-foot main house three years ago, Ms. Sweidy and an assistant began an investigation to try to figure out, among other things, how the house could have passed muster with the town.

One of her discoveries, made about two months ago: Mr. Wasmann's certification as a building inspector had lapsed in June 2007, five months after he had been promoted from senior building inspector to building official. And, she found, he does not hold building official certification.

In calling for Mr. Wasmann's firing, Ms. Sweidy wrote in a letter to City Attorney Wynne Furth that the building official "is a danger to the residents of ... Atherton" and a liability to the town.

After the town learned of Mr. Wasmann's failure to renew his certification, he took "the necessary steps" to reinstate it, and completed the process in June, Ms. Furth said in a June 29 letter to Ms. Sweidy.

Mr. Wasmann could not be reached for comment, but Eileen Wilkerson, the town's assistant city manager, said that Mr. Wasmann meets all qualifications listed in the town's job description for the building department's top post.

Atherton does not require certification for its building official, even though the California Building Code says that such an employee "should be certified as a building official through a recognized certification program."

Saying that Atherton has some of the most complex and elaborately designed houses in the country, Ms. Sweidy blasted the town for not requiring more of the person who heads the department that provides oversight for home construction projects. "This is a job that requires a high level of skills, knowledge and competence," she said angrily, adding that it's not clear whether Mr. Wasmann completed an associate's degree from the College of San Mateo, which he attended from 1969 to 1971.

Under reconstruction

Situated on two acres near the creek, on Broadacres Road, the angular, multicolored stucco house and its accessory structures were designed to accommodate the couple's commitment to philanthropy, Ms. Sweidy said.

The main house has a multipurpose room, with a slightly raised stage, that can seat 85 guests for philanthropic events, she said. Three such gatherings were held there before the major reconstruction of the structures began, including an event for donors to Packard children's hospital and the associated Ronald McDonald House.

Such events are now on hold while the structures and grounds undergo major construction work. Recently, a construction crew began what is likely to be a six-month project to replace the 8- to 9-foot piers under the main house's foundation with 25- to 30-foot piers that engineers have deemed necessary to stabilize the house.

Ms. Sweidy said the foundation work was done improperly because it was based on information in a geotechnical study that was performed by a person who, she learned much later, was a civil engineer, not a geotechnical engineer. The study "ignored the local geological data well-known in the industry since the 1960s, including the existence of the Whiskey Hill Formation and the Alluvial Formation, with their chaotic mix of claystone and sandstone," Ms. Sweidy wrote in her complaint against the town.

Rick Colindres, the on-site supervisor overseeing the work, described the problem with the existing piers now supporting the house: "It's like trying to hold up a cantaloupe with toothpicks."

Ms. Sweidy said problems with the soils report and structural design plans based on it should have been caught and corrected by the building department during the plan review process. Instead, she said, the structural strength of the house is about 40 percent of what's required, according to engineers who have examined the house since the contractor, Fulwiler James Inc., walked off the site in spring 2007.

The entire retrofitting and reconstruction project is likely to take about two years, Ms. Sweidy said. In addition to the foundation-stabilization project, work is needed to shore up walls that have improper supports, and repairs are needed to a range of features from plumbing and electrical wiring, to tile and cabinetry, to the roof and floors.

Already reconstructed, at great cost, is the dissipation field, installed to control flooding on the property. Ms. Sweidy said she and her husband, perplexed by soil saturation, standing water, and flooding that was occurring near the dissipation field, found out five years after the field was constructed that the sump pump necessary to its operation had been omitted. The sump pump, she said, was required in the permit issued by the town, but a town inspector signed off without verifying its existence.

The project, Ms. Sweidy said, "is now millions of dollars over budget, and over what (the house) is worth." And, she added, the cost will be much higher before all the repairs are done.


----------



## peach

Attempting to bribe a public official is a felony..

so is taking the bribe..

It's a crime and no jurisdiction is going to stand behind you.

Making a mistake is one thing; being negligent or stupid is another.   Doing the job to the best of your ability and knowledge is what we do.  Purposely overlook a code violation - misfeasance and you are on your own!


----------



## fatboy

Spot on peach............


----------



## jim baird

I was offered a bribe by a mobile home rental tycoon once in a plausibly deniable way.  I had written a list of some corrections, and the day I was to check them he called and asked me if he "needed to bring money"...pause..."for a re-inspect fee or anything"...?

I told him inspectors never accepted any kinds of fees in the field, that he would have to trudge on down to the office for anything like that.


----------



## Yankee

So it brings up an interesting question regarding relying on licensed professionals. Was the BO negligent in accepting the design of the foundation from a civil as opposed to a geotech engineer?

"Ms. Sweidy said the foundation work was done improperly because it was based on information in a geotechnical study that was performed by a person who, she learned much later, was a civil engineer, not a geotechnical engineer. The study "ignored the local geological data well-known in the industry since the 1960s, including the existence of the Whiskey Hill Formation and the Alluvial Formation, with their chaotic mix of claystone and sandstone," Ms. Sweidy wrote in her complaint against the town."


----------



## mtlogcabin

> "Ms. Sweidy said the foundation work was done improperly because it was based on information in a geotechnical study that was performed by a person who, she learned much later, was a civil engineer, not a geotechnical engineer.


The BO did not hire the engineer. An engineer is an engineer just like a doctor is a doctor just because he or she may choose to specilize in certain areas is not the resposibility of the BO to check the engineers credentials. When I check on line with the state to verify an engineers license is current there is no distiction between, civil, structural, mechanical, electrical or a land surveyour. They are listed as proffessional engineers. In this case the engineers E & O insurance should be footing the bill for what he may have missed


----------



## Mark K

I would expect that the BO and the jurisdiction will escape legal liability for inept work.

The question is whether the jurisdiction will determine that the political fallout is too much and that they need to do a better job in performing their duties?  Is the current staff properly qualified?  Should they contract out with qualified consultants to perform plan reviews for significant projects?  When an inspector works his way up to BO he often has more difficulty in understanding how to deal with more sophisticated projects.  This relates to the debate whether the BO should be a licensed architect or engineer.

It could be that the BO did everything right but some consideration should be given to the possibility that there was some fire to go with the smoke.  There should be some reflection on what were the lessons learned from this experience.

The question in my mind is who selected the engineer to perform the geotechnical report.  Most sophisticated consultants would have recommended a geotechnical engineer be retained and not a civil engineer.  It would be speculation but I would look at what role the Owner, the Architect, and the structural designer, had in selecting the other members of the design team.


----------



## FredK

Well I haven't figured on a good price for a bribe.  I figure UB's is 4-10 times too low for me to accept.  Until then I'll call them as the code allows.

As to accepting an engineer's report, I 'd have no grounds to throw that out along with some dubious calc's that show up every now and then.  Of course I'll ask where he was coming from to see if the he might want to recheck those numbers comes up.


----------



## RickAstoria

Mark K said:
			
		

> I would expect that the BO and the jurisdiction will escape legal liability for inept work.The question is whether the jurisdiction will determine that the political fallout is too much and that they need to do a better job in performing their duties?  Is the current staff properly qualified?  Should they contract out with qualified consultants to perform plan reviews for significant projects?  When an inspector works his way up to BO he often has more difficulty in understanding how to deal with more sophisticated projects.  This relates to the debate whether the BO should be a licensed architect or engineer.
> 
> It could be that the BO did everything right but some consideration should be given to the possibility that there was some fire to go with the smoke.  There should be some reflection on what were the lessons learned from this experience.
> 
> The question in my mind is who selected the engineer to perform the geotechnical report.  Most sophisticated consultants would have recommended a geotechnical engineer be retained and not a civil engineer.  It would be speculation but I would look at what role the Owner, the Architect, and the structural designer, had in selecting the other members of the design team.


Geotechnical Engineer (Soils Engineer) for Soils studies

Civil Engineer for retaining walls, geologic reshaping, ect.

You NEED BOTH. Never one or the other UNLESS you KNOW that a person is QUALIFIED as both. (ie. have passed exams for geotechnical and civil engineering).

Structural Engineer for structural calculations in projects where an engineer is required OR where it would be prudent such as when piles/piers are used. Given the nature and description, even I would probably have engineering consultants if this was built in Oregon. I may handle some of the structural calcs but if I have an SE on board, I would probably leave the calcs to the engineer ESPECIALLY if the client is a lawyer.

Mechanical Engineer or qualified mechanical contractor (depending on complexity of system)

Electrical Engineer or Master-level Electrician qualified to prepare the electrical plans

Plumbing (qualified engineer) or plumbing contractor with qualified skill to layout plumbing plans

Architect or Building Designer for the design of the overall house and coordination of the consultants. This is where I either do it myself on certain things I'm capable of doing myself (and comfortable doing it myself with respect to the liability) OR I hire a qualified consultant.

Lets not forget the land surveyor for surveying property boundaries if markers are not already present at all points of the property to clearly delineate the shape and lines of the property. It must be absolutely clear or you find yourself in another problem.


----------



## RickAstoria

In regards to bribery,

The price is for the person doing the bribe is ALL of the entire Universe, Money, and the guy spends 10 Trillion years in jail being Tyrone's fresh new girlfriend.


----------



## conarb

In the City and County of San Francisco you almost have to hire a permit expediter to get a permit, otherwise you get a run-around that can last years, the last I heard the fees for a permit expediter ran $10,000 for starters, a former city plan checker was one of the most successful at getting permits, Jimmy Jen was quite sucessful



> Jen is a former plan checker  for the city of San Francisco who is well known in construction circles  for his ability to push permits through building inspectors.


----------



## Mark K

Rick

In California a registered engineer or architect can only be retained by the client, an architect, enginer, lawyer and sometimes a contractor.  If an unlicensed building designer were to hire a registered engineer or architect he would be in violation of the licensing laws.


----------



## peach

Oh, for me.. it would have to be steam trunk(s) of non sequential, un marked $50's.  But then, I couldn't lift them or fit them into the Corolla, so I guess... I don't have a price.

Had a framer that used to leave a 6 pack for the inspector (don't know that any of them ever took it)...


----------



## RickAstoria

Mark K said:
			
		

> RickIn California a registered engineer or architect can only be retained by the client, an architect, enginer, lawyer and sometimes a contractor.  If an unlicensed building designer were to hire a registered engineer or architect he would be in violation of the licensing laws.


Yeah. It would be adjusted to the laws. In other words, the contract maybe made with the client under those circumstances but I serve as client's authorized agent.


----------



## peach

Client's authorized agent?  so you're not the building official?  A public official is never an agent of anyone.


----------



## RickAstoria

peach said:
			
		

> Client's authorized agent?  so you're not the building official?  A public official is never an agent of anyone.


No. I don't think I claimed to be the B.O. I know the B.O. in my locale and the requirements. I know what the codes are, the statutes and administrative rules of this state.


----------



## peach

> Originally Posted by *peach*
> 
> I understand all that, Rick.. I don't do plan review (which is where these issues get flushed out)... although I was a plan reviewer for many years.
> 
> Require what you want.
Click to expand...

Are you not a Building Official ?

It is your duty if you don't have have a separate dedicated plan reviewer

I copied and pasted (although maybe not as professionally as i could have) from the residential structural.

I HAVE been a building offical.. in 3 jurisdictions.. I'm now a 3PP.

AND an agent (as an approved 3PP) for a major jurisdiction.

I have almost 30 years of municipal/design/construction/enforcement experience. (take out 5 years of military.. ok, 25).

*I KNOW* what I'm talking about.

I received my degree in ENGINEERING in 1979.. all my military stints have been with the Corps of Engineers (including mobilization right after 911 at the Corps HQ).


----------



## RickAstoria

peach said:
			
		

> I copied and pasted (although maybe not as professionally as i could have) from the residential structural.I HAVE been a building offical.. in 3 jurisdictions.. I'm now a 3PP.
> 
> AND an agent (as an approved 3PP) for a major jurisdiction.
> 
> I have almost 30 years of municipal/design/construction/enforcement experience. (take out 5 years of military.. ok, 25).
> 
> *I KNOW* what I'm talking about.
> 
> I received my degree in ENGINEERING in 1979.. all my military stints have been with the Corps of Engineers (including mobilization right after 911 at the Corps HQ).


Helped out in your quoting. Ok, Peach. Not sure what 3PP means. I'm not into all the fancy alphabet soup titles.


----------



## pyrguy

3pp = third party provider


----------



## RJJ

pyrguy: Thanks! When I don't know one of these things I just ask my grand daughter. The kids to day can text at the speed of light.


----------



## peach

amen to that RJJ.. speed of light, (then they move on to something else.. I'm convinced so that we can't see what they just did).


----------



## RickAstoria

pyrguy said:
			
		

> 3pp = third party provider


Thanks for clarification. I was wanting to be sure what it meant in the context. It was on the line of thought in my mind.


----------



## RJJ

Peach: It is quite humbling when my 8 year old grandson shows me how to use the computer, cell phone, wee, or xbox. However, when it comes to finding fish he is the student.


----------



## krsweidy

Some Clarification

Building Professionals,

I just discovered this message board and its discussion of our situation.  For those interested in the facts, I refer you to our two relevant pleadings:

http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/getpdf/pdftemp/2010110710260118332/A-0000129388-1.pdf

http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/getpdf/pdftemp/2010110710495329657/A-0000144343-1.pdf

Kimberly R. Sweidy, Homeowner and Co-Counsel


----------



## conarb

Ms. Sweidy:

Interesting, I find your 5th Amendment inverse condemnation cause of action unique.


----------



## Yankee

I can't even read it . . . too many capitols.


----------



## Mark K

My expectation is that the City of Atherton will walk.  No evidence provided that would indicate that the officials acted outside of their governmental duties, thus they should be immune from action.  Suggest that the City's consultants did not have authority to issue or deny permit thus many of the claims against them are invalid.

The claim against the City references a code section that it does not appear was even adopted by the City.  Because of state amendments to the CBC Chapter 1 of the 2006 IBC was placed in an appendix and is thus only applicable if specifically adopted by the local jurisdiction.  Suggest that the plaintiff’s consultants did not fully understand the Building Code.

A quick internet search on the attorneys representing the plaintiffs indicates that Carey & Carey specializes in family law and real estate cases.  Mr. Campbell specializes in civil litigation.  Are these the appropriate areas of expertise?

Should the city have found some of the problems?  Probably but that does not establish that they are liable.  I will suggest the plan checks in California are probably more thorough than in many parts of the country.

Allegations that the defendants should have known of their own incompetence is ludicrous.  It is well established that incompetent individuals tend to have great confidence that they know what they are doing.

I am not surprised to hear that work was not done per code and their may be a claim but it would not surprise me if there are other factors at play.  The sense is that somebody is after revenge.  When there is a need for revenge or to be proven right it only enriches the lawyers.  There is a saying may you be cursed with a law suit where you are in the right.

Why did the plaintiff not do a background check on the contractor and the designers?  Would they not do the same if advising one of their clients.  Note that at lest one of the Plaintiffs is an attorney.  If the defendants are truly incompetent and dishonest as alleged such an investigation should have uncovered such facts.

The pleading suggests that the plaintiffs were much more involved in making decisions and approving subs than is normal.  Along with the control/involvement one accepts some liability for the results.

I am thankful that it is not against the law to discriminate against lawyers.


----------



## packsaddle

For those who don't want to read the whole thing, here is the abridged version:

"Greetings, you have been sued......herein blah blah blah.....severe emotional and psychological pain and suffering......theretofore blah blah blah......malicious and negligent actions......henceforward blah blah blah."

Hope this helps.


----------



## krsweidy

I Apologize ...

Building Professionals,

I mistakenly believed that this was a forum for Building Professionals who passionately love the "best profession in the world," that of building the homes and businesses where we live and work.  Instead, I found:

1) People making up their own facts;

2) People eager to "blame the victims;" and

3) People unburdened by the ability to spell and punctuate.

I apologize profusely.  My mistake.  I won't intrude again.

Sincerely,

Kimberly R. Sweidy, Homeowner


----------



## mark handler

krsweidy said:
			
		

> Building Professionals,I mistakenly believed that this was a forum for Building Professionals who passionately love the "best profession in the world," that of building the homes and businesses where we live and work.  Instead, I found:
> 
> 1) People making up their own facts;
> 
> 2) People eager to "blame the victims;" and
> 
> 3) People unburdened by the ability to spell and punctuate.
> 
> I apologize profusely.  My mistake.  I won't intrude again.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Kimberly R. Sweidy, Homeowner


Welcome

Well stated, sorry to see you go

Sounds like issues that killed the ICC site

Mark


----------



## brudgers

krsweidy said:
			
		

> Building Professionals,I mistakenly believed that this was a forum for Building Professionals who passionately love the "best profession in the world," that of building the homes and businesses where we live and work.  Instead, I found:
> 
> 1) People making up their own facts;
> 
> 2) People eager to "blame the victims;" and
> 
> 3) People unburdened by the ability to spell and punctuate.
> 
> I apologize profusely.  My mistake.  I won't intrude again.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Kimberly R. Sweidy, Homeowner


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCvz8y_DUSY


----------



## Uncle Bob

I tried to read that first document; about the $13, 000,000.00 construction of a home(?) law suit.  Wow, if they can't build a house that is that expensive; what happens to "normal" homes?

The homeowner either knows a lot about the construction process, methods and materials; or hired someone to be on-site who does.  If the homeowner knew all the details of incorrect construction at the time it was being done; and let the construction continue; then I don't see where there is reason for a law suit.  But, that's California; I guess.

Didn't read link #2; but so far, I'm with Packsaddle on this one,

Uncle Bob


----------



## texasbo

krsweidy said:
			
		

> Building Professionals,I mistakenly believed that this was a forum for Building Professionals who passionately love the "best profession in the world," that of building the homes and businesses where we live and work.  Instead, I found:
> 
> 1) People making up their own facts;
> 
> 2) People eager to "blame the victims;" and
> 
> 3) People unburdened by the ability to spell and punctuate.
> 
> I apologize profusely.  My mistake.  I won't intrude again.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Kimberly R. Sweidy, Homeowner


Actually, the "best profession in the world" is Naval Attack Aviation, but being a building official is a close second. I'm sorry that you feel there are those who are blaming the victim, just because their opinion differs from yours. However, nothing I have read points to the failure of the city to perform any duty owed to you, nor is there any evidence of incompetence. I, like others, expect you to fail in your pursuit of the city.

Just a little friendly advice for your future posts: attacking one's spelling, grammar or punctuation in lieu of focusing on the point of the argument makes you appear petulant and childish. As an attorney I would expect you to be better than that.


----------



## vegas paul

I find it interesting that everyone that Ms. Sweidy chose/hired (and paid huge $$) is evidently faultless. This includes the architect, engineer, contractor, and CUSTOMER! And the civil servant who is obligated to perform a limited, clearly defined scope of inspections is culpable???

The purpose of an inspector is to CONFIRM code compliance, not create it. The design professionals and builder (and ultimately the customer) are on the hook for the code compliance. I bet this complex home requried special inspections on many of the disputed components... where are they in the lawsuit?


----------



## FyrBldgGuy

VP... I believe in the first link they are suing everyone in the design and construction process including John Does 1-250 to represent those that have yet to be named.

In the next pleading it may also include John Does 251-3000 for those that may have been on this board or the former ICC board that may have known or should have known that individuals or organizations had conspired to defraud them.  Clearly the ICC and the California Standards Board are culpable.  The code should have specified as it is a legislative duty to provide mandatory requirements for providing additional...  What ever.


----------



## vegas paul

Thanks, FyrBldgGuy... I didn't read the whole pleading (surprise).  This just sounds like an example of "It's not my fault, somebody else has to be responsible".


----------



## mtlogcabin

Agree with Mark especially



> The pleading suggests that the plaintiffs were much more involved in making decisions and approving subs than is normal. Along with the control/involvement one accepts some liability for the results.


The plantiffs controlled the money that let this project proceed so long.

Do I spell and puncuate correctly?


----------



## conarb

Bob:

The first link is the complaint against the design professionals and the contractors, the second is against the city and it's employees.  You might note that she alleges that the building inspector doesn't have a college degree, the most she could find was that he enrolled in a community college for an AA degree, but found no evidence that he ever received that degree. The cost isn't really out of line for Atherton, if you recall I posted about a Woodside home and 7 days of continuous framing inspections, Woodside is only a few miles west, and it has two homes that I know of that ran $70 million and $68 million, I also noted that she only has $600,000 worth of cabinets made from junk, the $68 million dollar home has $6 million worth of cabinets.

It's also noteworthy that she was permitted in 2000, that was after the structural code, but before the Energy and Green Codes, God only knows what her house would cost if permitted today, LEED Platinum homes are running three times the costs of normal construction from what I hear.

The house is 8,500 square feet, Zillow has it at $5.8 million, that's only $700 a square foot, homes around Silicon Valley run $500 to $1,000 a foot, here it is if you are interested. 

Read about Atherton.  I lived in Atherton for a few months 55 years ago while I was in college, nice town.


----------



## Jobsaver

Mark K and packsaddle speak truly. Mt, noth'in wrong with yer puncuation. Ms. Sweidy: I recommend you build your next dream home somewhere in Texas.


----------



## bldginsp

I've always stated monetary payment at the local level is bribery, monetary payment at state or federal level is called lobbying, go figure.


----------



## RJJ

krsweidy: First, we are professionals who take a great deal of pride in what we do. To play amongst us, you need a thick skin.

Let me welcome you to the BB. We do want the general public to bring us issues. You may not get want you want as a response. We do not all agree even on code issues all the time. Hope you read this cause I know you are online.

To the rest play nice.


----------



## texasbo

Yes, we do want the general public to bring us issues, and most of us will go out of our way to help them. However, I have little respect for those who file frivolous lawsuits. I have little respect for those who choose to blame everyone but themselves when things go south. I have little respect for those who focus on peripheral subject matter to use as a 'straw man' to beat up, instead of focusing on the real issues.

Trying to blame the city because the engineered foundation was based on a geotech report that was prepared by a civil engineer rather than a geotechnical engineer? Are you kidding me?

There is myriad case history with situations just as this. Time and time again, the courts have ruled that the city did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, nor was a special relationship formed just because the city inspected their property. Furthermore, no special duty is created by state or local adoption of a building code. Such adoption is intended to protect the general public, and does not constitute a specific duty to an individual. If that were the case, cities would be responsible for the correction of every code violation of every building that received inspection. Not going to happen.

As I said, the suit is destined to fail; it is good money being thrown after bad...


----------



## RJJ

Texasbo: I agree! Have experienced first hand a bad Geo report just a few years back. 48k / 3 story building began to sink on one side.

Seems they didn't bore all the areas shown on the report. Building got fixed and I am sure some legal actions was taken. As the BCO for the ahj, I had to accept the original Geotech report when seal and stamped.


----------



## Jobsaver

RJJ: Play nice? Somewhere between Ms. Sweidy's "I apologize" and "sincerely", I started experiencing severe emotional and psychological pain and distress.


----------



## Yankee

That was a kind of strange way to approach the forum community . . . . what reaction was expected, I really don't know.


----------



## RJJ

Guys I was only fooling with the play nice! No one was out of line!


----------



## Jobsaver

Yankee said:
			
		

> That was a kind of strange way to approach the forum community . . . . what reaction was expected, I really don't know.


Yes Ms. Sweidy. We are in complete agreement. Obviously, you know more, are smarter, and spell better than damn near anyone else alive on this planet. Please come back to brighten this forum often.


----------

