To the Open Government, Transparency in Government Committee:
From: Lea Terhune
Date: June 29, 2008
Subject: Code Enforcement Process
For the past two years, I have participated in the Code Enforcement process regarding a vacant building and abandoned swimming pool. http://dangerpool.blogspot.com/
The property owners failed to get a vacant property permit until recently, and the situation is currently being reviewed.
In my opinion, the Municipal Code and P&Z Protocol are very good, clear and easy to read for the most part; the investigators seem to be competent and diligent; and the city attorney is available to advise Code Enforcement staff. In my case (AMANDA # 142738 and #167603), the problem was a director who was disrespectful, freely expressed bias before the investigation of a reported violation, seemed to make a determination based on personal factors unrelated to the Municipal Code, accepted an incomplete vacant building permit application, and may have violated the Municipal Code in waiving fees. There is an appeal process to have the situation reviewed by a third party and this is costly in many ways.
The current complaint-driven code enforcement process labels a person who contacts the office as a COMPLAINANT and the reported violation is labeled a COMPLAINT. These labels establish a negative mind-set, because no one likes to be called a complainer, or deal with a complainant who makes complaints. The process feels creepy from the very start.
Resident-respectful mind-set: Assumptions:
· Municipal Code is law that governs community health and safety.
· Lax code enforcement and failure to collect fees and assign penalties erodes respect for the Code and the Code Enforcement Office, and encourages violations.
· Residents exhibit civic responsibility by alerting CE to a possible violation of the Municipal Code.
· Residents' enjoyment of their property is often infringed upon by violations of the Municipal Code.
· Residents deserve respect in all dealings with city government.
Resident-respectful mind-set: Labels
Using respectful, neutral words to describe the action and the resident, like report and person who filed the report, is appropriate for a neutral fact-finding civic process. A resident-friendly, educational and lawful process would work like this:
- Person reports a problem in person, by phone, via on-line communication, or by filing a written report.
- CE acknowledges the person's report with reference to applicable section of Municipal Code, and provides information about Code and Protocol.
o If Municipal Code does not apply, the person who filed the report is informed that there is no basis for action and why, and where/how to Appeal if not satisfied.
o If Municipal Code applies, CE investigates, makes a site visit, interviews parties involved, then issues a determination based on the Municipal Code. The person who filed the report receives a clear statement of the investigator's findings, area/s of the Municipal Code that apply, action that will be taken, and the Appeal Process.
In my experience with the Code Enforcement process as it exists today, after notifying CD of a problem, I heard nothing. The problem was not improved or resolved; and when I persisted I was given the run-around or worse. I was given misinformation about the Municipal Code; and I was given no information about how to appeal if I was not satisfied. A Code Enforcement Office that doesn’t enforce the Municipal Code has job performance issues that need to be addressed, and job performance may be the root of many issues residents have raised about Code Enforcement in our city. On the other hand, if the Director is instructed by a superior not to enforce the Code and to waive fees, or to enforce and charge fees selectively, that is a problem of greater magnitude. The Code Enforcement Office needs a transparent evaluation and performance review.
Respectfully submitted,
Lea Terhune
