inspectors

[ceb]

This is something I would like inspectors thoughts on. In the rural county I live in?N.C. one of our inspectors was fired, he was a build. and elect. inspector. Here is the "run down" a person reported to a county commissioner that a neighbors house was substandard. The house had been remodeled by a native American group, whom I assume paid the bill,the county officials inspected the house they found raw sewage running out of the ground,the drinking water well was only 10' from the septic tank,and found live wires mangled in the panel among other problems. When they ask the inspector about this situation he said that he knew of the problems but he was not required to enforce the regulations since their were never any permits issued. He was fired.
I know that the laws are different from state to state but I would like to hear some responses on how you would have handled this and or if he was correct in his statement that he was not required to in force this.( I have delt with this inspector before he is not a slouch on his job,he knows his codes but he is only one of two inspectors for the county)

 

[ctroyp]

Re: inspectors

If there were no permits, why was he even there on his original inspection?

Reguardless, he should have reported if he was aware...

Note: Sorry, I'm not an inspector, just had to ask.

[ September 30, 2003, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: ctroyp ]

 

[Guest]

Re: inspectors

You could spin this one either way. Lack of enforcement or stepping on somebody's constitutional rights. When you said Native American I thought you were going to say they had special sovereign rights. But since you did not, what relevance is the native American part? You might want to edit that part out as it is not necessary to convey the story.

 

[ceb]

Re: inspectors

The insp.was not their on any inspection he was ask about the situation and he replied he knew their were problems. as for the native American this house was remodeled through a tribal government with Federal H.U.D. money.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: inspectors

If they had been doing remodel work, they were probably required by law to have a permit. When the inspector realized there was no permit, he should have posted a "stop work notice" on the door and had the police escort him back if there were problems. To say that the lack of a permit allows you to circumvent the code is nonsense.

 

[bennie]

Re: inspectors

I understand that HUD plays by their own rules.
The different rules, in various States, is the reason for HUD excluding the covered projects from local or state regulations.
The Federal Government does not purchase permits.

There should be a website for HUD, with some information.

 

[charlie b]

Re: inspectors

I was involved in the design of a large addition to an existing facility that was owned by a local tribe, and located on their land. No permits were needed, and there was no legal obligation to comply with the NEC. The tribe was its own AHJ. However, they insisted that we follow the NEC and all other codes that would have applied on non-tribal land. They hired a different consultant to act on their behalf in the capacity of an inspector. They knew the value of the code and wanted to do things the right way.

But I think this project was not on tribal land. If it were on tribal land, no permit would have been needed, and neither the County Commissioner nor the County Inspectors would have had jurisdiction. The Inspector could not have been fired for failure to perform a duty that was beyond the scope of his authority.

 

[russellroberts]

Re: inspectors

I also have done work on an Indian reservation. It involved renovation of some homes and some new apartments that were done with HUD funding.

The Tribe hired a retired inspector from an adjoining county to oversee the work. There was a HUD represenative there from time to time,but just to make sure the work was progressing as it should.

There's some land owned by the Eastern Band Of The Cherokee Nation about 30 min. from here,and as I understand it,if you are on the Tribal roll,you could build there without permits or inspections.

I'd agree with Charlie,if this had been on Tribal land,the inspectors and county comissioners would have been quickly been shown the door/boundry,and the inspector could not be held accountable.

Russell

 

[inspector 102]

Re: inspectors

As an inspector, I feel that I am responcible to abrogate any violation or hazard that I have knowledge exists. The point about jurisdictional rights to even perform an inspection depends on plain view issues and who requested the inspection. If an inspection is requested by the controlling property, I will conduct an inspection. Otherwise an individual needs to provide me with a document stating their concerns and possibly pictures that I can present to a judge for a search/inspection order. Once right of entry is secured, any violation found on the premise would have to be properlty addressed and abated. Since I am also a combination inspector, I know there are many homes out there with violations that scare the **** out of us.

 

[bennie]

Re: inspectors

In regards to the original question, about the firing of an inspector. He should hire a labor attorney. He is correct to refuse inspecting any item not included in a legal document giving him permission.

An inspector, for a government agency, can not be a loose cannon when dealing with civil or criminal issues.

A public official whose official action creates a financial gain for any other person, relative, friend, fraternity or professional affiliate, is guilty of conflict of interest.

This offense is a prosecutable civil infraction of professional ethics.

 

[russellroberts]

Re: inspectors

It sounds to me as though the inspector could have been there on his own time for a casual visit.

Was he friends with the homeowner? Good combination inspectors are not easy to come by.
Seems odd that they'ed fire him unless he really stepped on it.

Lots of unanswered questions.

Russell

 

[rick5280]

Re: inspectors

I have heard that if a "qualified" person, such as an inspector, sees hazards, and does nothing about it, and someone gets hurt, then the "qualified" person may be liable. I was told there were 3 portions of neglect. Malfeasence (sorry for the spelling) was one, and I can't remember what the other 2 were, but each one was less a validation than the one before, with malfeasence the worst case. If a lawyer could prove malfeasence, they could hang you. In other words, if they could prove neglect on any of the 3, you are liable for damages.

Anyone heard of this? Or was someone just blowing smoke up my ***????

Maybe we ought to have Mike Holt start a subject called "Lawyers, and other odd animals!!"

Rick Miell

 

[russellroberts]

Re: inspectors

Of course, this would all be moot if it was on Tribal Land/Reservation.

Russell

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: inspectors

When you said Native American I thought you were going to say they had special sovereign rights. But since you did not, what relevance is the native American part? You might want to edit that part out as it is not necessary to convey the story.

What the heck is that all about? :roll:

 

[ceb]

Re: inspectors

To clear up muddy water. The home is on private land. not a reservation. The group that paid for the remodel calls them selves the Lumbee tribal government council. What they do is distribute money from H.U.D. grants to low income families to remodel homes or pay rent. The Lumbee Indians do not have government recognition as of yet but they are fighting hard for it, so when I say Native Americans they do not have the same standing as "other tribes". Finally, it's my understanding the inspector knew NOTHING about the remodel work being done until long after the home was completed. He was contacted later and when he found their had been NO permits issued he could not inforce the building codes. To me its a political cover your A** by firing the man.

 

[Guest]

Re: inspectors

Originally posted by electricmanscott:
<big snip>What the heck is that all about?

 

[big jim]

Re: inspectors

I would suspect that the issue of "Native American" may have played an important part here. Political Correctness may have strongly influenced a decision that was largely discresionary on the part of the official that did the firing. Whatever your opinion, the ethnicity is part of the facts. I would perfer to determine the relevancy on my own, not to have it precensored.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: inspectors

Well said Jim I agree 100 percent. Wayne you might feel it neccessary to be politically correct,many do not nor should they have to. For you to suggest that someone should edit their words to fit your thoughts is crossing a line that should not be crossed.

 

[Guest]

Re: inspectors

I'm not compulsive about it but I think it's best policy in multi-cultural public forums to remain gender and/or ethnic neutral when it comes to posting unless the gender or ethnicity is central to the post.

In this case it's my personal opinion that mentioning an ethnicity is somewhat insensitive. It's not a big deal but worth mentioning.

IMO we could all do a better job of keeping out posts more generic (and I'm certainly including myself). Enough said.

../Wayne C.

[ October 02, 2003, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[ceb]

Re: inspectors

AWWT,
Let me explain why the race was included. It was impart the main topic that ran in the local news paper. There was more to it than just the inspector being fired. The article went into the fact that?the contractors were native American who were doing shoddy work on homes owned by their on race of people. However, what I wanted was feed back from others on the fact the inspector was fired because he had learned of problems ( long after the work had been done) and due to the fact that no permits were issued for this job he couldn't inforce the building codes.