# Two  building inspectors sentenced to probation for accepting bribes



## mark handler (Mar 22, 2014)

Two Detroit building inspectors sentenced to probation for accepting bribes

DETROIT, MI -- Phil Lockhart, 57, of Detroit, and Delos Matthews, 54, of Farmington Hills, both employees in the Detroit building inspectors, admit to accepting bribes in exchange for "looking the other way" on code violations.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/02/two_detroit_building_inspector.html

Lockart accepted a $300 cash bribe to ignore the Detroit’s permit requirement for a residential construction project performed by a contractor," Attorney General Bill Schuette's office says. "Matthews accepted a $200 cash bribe to approve electric circuits in a rental property that did not meet electrical code and ignore other electrical code violations, creating a potential fire risk for future tenants."

Wayne County 36th District Court Kevin Judge Robbins sentenced Taylor to two years probation, the first 120 days on tethered house arrest, 25 hours community service and court fees; and Matthews to two years probation, 40 hours of community service and court fees.

On Aug. 29, Schuette announced the results of a probe into the Detroit inspections department that resulted in 17 charges and unveiled extensive bribery.

The bribes ranged from $50 to $3,000 and extend back as far as 2007; others are as recent as 2012.

 “Public safety officials who accept bribes and ignore their duties undermine safety for everyone,” said Schuette in a prepared statement. “Detroit needs more safety, not less, and that starts with public officials doing their job instead of lining their pockets.”

MLive Detroit has requested the employment status of the charged employees from Mayor Mike Duggan's Office and had not received a reply as of noon Tuesday.


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2014)

They live in Detroit. That is punishment enough.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 23, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> They live in Detroit. That is punishment enough.


probation in Detroit...

http://www.jokes4us.com/miscellaneousjokes/cityjokes/detroitjokes.html


----------



## jar546 (Mar 23, 2014)

Probation?  That's it?


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Probation?  That's it?


Well they didn't have much of a charge against them.  Taking a bribe is serious but a $300 bribe?

Lockart looks crafty and smug.  Matthews looks like a big dummy that was continually surprised that he was hired to be an inspector.


----------



## Dennis (Mar 23, 2014)

When I was a kid in NYC I worked with my dad-- started at 13 years old.  Every job my dad had to meet the inspector and slip him $5.00.  When I asked why he did it, he said if he didn't they would schedule meets and then not show up for days at a time.  He didn't have much choice other than reporting it and most contractors don't want to open that can.

Eventually the crap hit the fan and the entire system had a shake down but that was many years later.  Not sure what it is like now.


----------



## Dennis (Mar 23, 2014)

Here is an article from 1984-- payoffs much higher than what I was talking about--  http://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/08/nyregion/32-accused-of-corruption-in-city-inspections.html


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2014)

An acquaintance from Reno Nevada told me that the same went on there.  That was twenty years ago and it was a fifty dollar handshake.

I wonder what punishment the NYC inspectors received.  What about the rest of the inspectors?

It is interesting that only 26 electrical inspectors managed to handle the entire city.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 23, 2014)

What is the difference between an inspector that extracts a bribe and a plan checker or building inspector who requires something be done which is not required by the adopted regulations?  In both cases it adds to the cost of construction.  In both cases the building inspector or plan checker says he can ignore the law.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 23, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> What is the difference between an inspector that extracts a bribe and a plan checker or building inspector who requires something be done which is not required by the adopted regulations?  In both cases it adds to the cost of construction.  In both cases the building inspector or plan checker says he can ignore the law.


NOT the same, personal gain vs code interpretation

What you say is " not required" maybe in his/her"interpretation" required.

And remember the code is the Minimum. the problem is when the goal of a designer/contractor is to skirt the code or try to meet the code rather than exceed the code, the code is the Minimum.

I am sure the contractors in ICE's photos feel the "....building inspector who requires something be done which is not required by the adopted regulations..."


----------



## Mark K (Mar 23, 2014)

If a reasonable interpretation of the regulation supports the plan checker or inspectors position we can have a discussion.  When the plan checker or inspector cannot reference a code provision the implication is that they are requiring what they personally believe is necessary not what the regulations require.  I have had a plan checker admit that there was no code requirement but I had to do what he personally required or we would not get a permit.  There are gray areas but there are also many instances where it is clear that the code  does not support what is required.

How would you feel if a police officer arrested you because you did something that he personally did not believe was right when there was no law prohibiting what you did?

The code is a minimum and the building department cannot require anything more than the minimum.  When the building department requires something more than the minimum they are saying that they can ignore the will of the legislature and impose their personal preferences.  The choice to go beyond the minimum in the code is a choice for the Owner to make in conjunction with his consultants not a value judgment to be imposed by a plan checker or inspector.

While an inspector who imposes personal requirements cannot be charged with a crime, from the point of view of the Owner, contractor, or design professional there is little difference.


----------



## fireguy (Mar 23, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> What is the difference between an inspector that extracts a bribe and a plan checker or building inspector who requires something be done which is not required by the adopted regulations?  In both cases it adds to the cost of construction.  In both cases the building inspector or plan checker says he can ignore the law.


The former is an illegal act, for which the inspector did not receive more than a slap on the wrist. They should be required

1. to pay back the bribe, with interest

2.apologize in a public forum and too the contractor and the contractor's client

3.  and be laid off for a while, if not fired.

When the inspector steals, he casts a shadow on all the honest inspectors and contractors.

 The latter may or may not be the result of ignorance, or  lack of training.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 23, 2014)

In any case where the owner/designer/contractor feels there is a case where the building inspector or plan checker is requiring something not in the code, they can go to the BO and appeal the interpretation.

To request or suggest, is not breaking the law. To accept a bribe is.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 23, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> ....  I have had a plan checker admit that there was no code requirement but I had to do what he personally required or we would not get a permit.  There are gray areas but there are also many instances where it is clear that the code  does not support what is required....


In that case you go to the BO, City Manager or Police Cheif.

Or to the city council....


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I am sure the contractors in ICE's photos feel the "....building inspector who requires something be done which is not required by the adopted regulations..."


They pretty much all get that feeling.  They are quite vocal about it.  Several companies have decided to not do any more work in my area....for that very reason.

The primary cause of their lack of understanding is the lax enforcement they face in most jurisdictions.  I am convinced that when they say, "We don't get these corrections anywhere but here" they are telling the truth.  It seems outlandish to think that they save the mistakes for just me.

A recent email complaint from an electrical contractor characterized my corrections as "judgement calls".  He referred to #6 as obviously a pet peeve because he has never heard of such a thing as this.  The other five are "minor code violations" that no other inspector calls them on because they have nothing to do with a "safe installation".

1. "Install wirenuts listed for wet locations".

2. "Install a bonding fitting on conduit through intact KO"

3." Install nail plates"

4. "Replace Damaged Cable"

5. "Bond water pipe at the water main"

6. "Seal top plate penetrations with approved fire block"

So for all of you contractors and designers out there remember this: You've never heard of it before means just that.  It isn't my fault that you had to find out the hard way.

Anyway, this thread is about crooked inspectors and not inspectors inventing codes.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 23, 2014)

Mark

By suggesting that the applicant appeal the problem to the authorities you are getting ahead of the question.  The first step is to recognize that there is no basic difference.  Then we can talk about how to deal with it.  Once building departments accept that there are limits on what plan checkers and inspectors can require and communicate that these limits should be respected much of the problem should go away.

There is a difference between enforcing what the code requires, which should be done, and imposing requirements which are not part of the adopted regulations.

The statement "To request or suggest, is not breaking the law. To accept a bribe is." ignores the fact that we are not talking about suggestions where the individual believes he has a real option.  In many instances the Contractor or designers are not told that this is an suggestion and in many instances the message is that that if you do not accept the suggestion there will be consequences.  While the plan checker or inspector may not have committed a crime that can send them to jail it is still illegal for them to require something not required by the regulations.

The suggestion that the applicant appeal to the Building Official or the City council raises the question why the contractors that paid the $5 bribes did not report the problem to the police.  This ignores the economics of extortion.  The  reality is that it is generally cheaper to pay the small extortion than to spend the time fighting it and risking what is seen a real likelihood of retaliation.  The only difference is that instead of the money going into the pocket of the inspector the money is spent doing something the Owner did not have to and did not want to do.  In both cases money is being extorted.


----------



## ICE (Mar 23, 2014)

Well then Mark K, you know what would make a huge difference?  Knowing the code.

The contractors and designers make their living beneath the umbrella of the code yet many haven't a clue.  If they knew the code they wouldn't be inclined to take a beating.

The whole bugaboo of megalomaniac code officials is ridiculous.  Everybody on the other side of the counter knows how to bitch up a storm....and right or wrong, they do.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 24, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> While an inspector who imposes personal requirements cannot be charged with a crime, from the point of view of the Owner, contractor, or design professional there is little difference.....
> 
> The first step is to recognize that there is no basic difference.


Big Big difference


----------



## mark handler (Mar 24, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> The code is a minimum and the building department cannot require anything more than the minimum.


NOT true. AHJ can and do have local amendments


----------



## mark handler (Mar 24, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> MarkThe suggestion that the applicant appeal to the Building Official or the City council raises the question why the contractors that paid the $5 bribes did not report the problem to the police.  This ignores the economics of extortion.  The  reality is that it is generally cheaper to pay the small extortion than to spend the time fighting it and risking what is seen a real likelihood of retaliation.  The only difference is that instead of the money going into the pocket of the inspector the money is spent doing something the Owner did not have to and did not want to do.  In both cases money is being extorted.


I costs nothing, in my city, to talk to the Building Official (Me), city manager, Police, or the City Council.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 24, 2014)

When the local amendments are properly adopted they are the code.  This redefines the minimum but the local enforcement personnel still cannot ask for more than this redefined minimum.  Local amendments in California must be adopted by the local legislative body and must be filed with the Building Standards Commission.  All other non administrative building requirements propagated by the Building Official are underground regulations.

I never said anything about the city officials charging for  their time and definitely was not inferring that anybody was on the  take.  The cost to the project has to do with the fact that the approval of the permit is on hold or the project, if we are dealing with a question during construction, is on hold while the issue gets resolved.  This is in addition to the time spent by the Owner and his representatives preparing for meetings to discuss the issue.  These delay costs often are much greater than the cost of doing the extra work.

The fact that there are some owners and contractors that try to get their way by bluster does not mean that everybody who has a disagreement is wrong.  There is no problem with enforcing the code as formally adopted.  The problem we are discussing has to do with when the requirement has not been formally adopted as a regulation.

A more basic question is what are the limits on the Building Official and his staff?

From the view point of the  contractor or the owner there is little to no difference between paying a bribe and doing additional work that they do not want to do and are not required to do by code.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 24, 2014)

You keep repeating your statement expecting a different response

I am sorry you are so cynical

Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it.― Stephen Colbert


----------



## Mark K (Mar 24, 2014)

I will admit to being overly optimistic in hoping that someone would respond to my core questions.

I believe the quote you were looking for was Einstein's definition of insanity which has to do with doing the same thing and expecting a different result.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 24, 2014)

Mark K said:
			
		

> I believe the quote you were looking for was Einstein's definition of insanity which has to do with doing the same thing and expecting a different result.


I did respond to you core question, just not the response you wanted. And no I was not refering to Einstein's quote, I was refering to your actions.


----------

