The Crisis of Code Complacency: A Reality Check on Inspector Integrity

[jar546]

A recent exchange in a thread inspired me to expand on it in its own thread. I believe the content is important as I watch an industry start to lose its way.

For over a decade, and probably longer, we've been witnessing an insidious slide into what can only be termed as 'code complacency.' This unsettling shift has picked up momentum, fueled by a perceived need for workload relief. As the drive for efficiency overtakes the pursuit of quality and safety, inspectors increasingly overlook details, leading to less interaction between management, customers, and ultimately, our communities.

However, we must ask ourselves: at what cost?

I've seen an unfortunate trend, particularly within third-party inspection companies and in municipalities plagued by ineffectual leadership. Complacency—whether born out of laziness, agenda-driven decisions, or skewed perceptions—undermines the very foundation of our building safety protocols. It's a disservice to our communities, the industries we serve, and the long-standing integrity of our profession.

A significant factor that often goes unnoticed is the 'perceived reality' that many inspectors operate under. An unsettling majority of complacent inspectors harbor perceptions that are gravely misaligned with the facts. These misconceptions breed unfounded fears, leading inspectors to compromise their responsibilities—sometimes intentionally. In my view, nearly 99% of compromised inspectors live in a distorted bubble of their own making, using self-created fears as excuses to 'drop the ball' on the job.

We all understand the pressure to conform, to streamline, and to expedite. But at what point did these imperatives supplant the bedrock principles of safety, quality, and yes—integrity? The old saying goes, "If you always do what's right, you can't go wrong." It's a simple ethos, yet it seems that many inspectors lack the intestinal fortitude to stand by it. Instead, they retreat into a cocoon of excuses, thereby replacing the once-revered attribute of integrity.

As professionals committed to upholding building safety and quality, it's time we hold ourselves, our colleagues, and our management to a higher standard. We must question and, if necessary, confront these instances of code complacency, ever mindful that our mission goes beyond mere workload relief. It's about safeguarding lives, ensuring quality, and reinstating integrity back into our profession. If you don't agree with these basic principles, then just maybe you're in the wrong profession. Maybe.

 

[jj1289]

Well said and agree. I am fortunate that my management understands and will support us as long as we can point to it in the code or our regulations.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I am fortunate that my management understands and will support us as long as we can point to it in the code or our regulations.

Exactly right, it makes a huge difference in the staffs moral and attitude if they have been reassured that if they are doing their job correctly management will have their backs when it is needed.

 

[jar546]

This thread was much quieter than I expected it to be.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Exactly right, it makes a huge difference in the staffs moral and attitude if they have been reassured that if they are doing their job correctly management will have their backs when it is needed.

The statement above is both central and crucial to the discussion. I know a building official who was fired for doing his job. He spent a year prior to the firing being micro-managed and second guessed at every step during the construction process of a project that should have been shut down as soon as it became obvious that the owner/permittee had no intention of paying any attention whatsoever to the building code. Not only did his "management" (the mayor) not have his back -- the administration was more interested in getting the tax dollars flowing and they actively worked to undermine and sabotage their own building official.

As a result of that case and some others, there are building officials who have defensively taken the attitude that it's safer to approve whatever crosses their desk rather than lose their jobs.

Any time you see the building official's office assigned to the "Land Use Department" or (worse) the "Economic Development Department" you can be certain that there's a building official whose management doesn't have his back. Building safety has nothing to do with land use or economic development. If I had my 'druthers, I'd assign the building code enforcement team to the police department, swear them in, and give them all badges.

 

[Mark K]

A recent exchange in a thread inspired me to expand on it in its own thread. I believe the content is important as I watch an industry start to lose its way.

For over a decade, and probably longer, we've been witnessing an insidious slide into what can only be termed as 'code complacency.' This unsettling shift has picked up momentum, fueled by a perceived need for workload relief. As the drive for efficiency overtakes the pursuit of quality and safety, inspectors increasingly overlook details, leading to less interaction between management, customers, and ultimately, our communities.

However, we must ask ourselves: at what cost?

I've seen an unfortunate trend, particularly within third-party inspection companies and in municipalities plagued by ineffectual leadership. Complacency—whether born out of laziness, agenda-driven decisions, or skewed perceptions—undermines the very foundation of our building safety protocols. It's a disservice to our communities, the industries we serve, and the long-standing integrity of our profession.

A significant factor that often goes unnoticed is the 'perceived reality' that many inspectors operate under. An unsettling majority of complacent inspectors harbor perceptions that are gravely misaligned with the facts. These misconceptions breed unfounded fears, leading inspectors to compromise their responsibilities—sometimes intentionally. In my view, nearly 99% of compromised inspectors live in a distorted bubble of their own making, using self-created fears as excuses to 'drop the ball' on the job.

We all understand the pressure to conform, to streamline, and to expedite. But at what point did these imperatives supplant the bedrock principles of safety, quality, and yes—integrity? The old saying goes, "If you always do what's right, you can't go wrong." It's a simple ethos, yet it seems that many inspectors lack the intestinal fortitude to stand by it. Instead, they retreat into a cocoon of excuses, thereby replacing the once-revered attribute of integrity.

As professionals committed to upholding building safety and quality, it's time we hold ourselves, our colleagues, and our management to a higher standard. We must question and, if necessary, confront these instances of code complacency, ever mindful that our mission goes beyond mere workload relief. It's about safeguarding lives, ensuring quality, and reinstating integrity back into our profession. If you don't agree with these basic principles, then just maybe you're in the wrong profession. Maybe.

A lot to unpack but I will like to comment on a design professional engineers perspective.

The design professional is concerned that the installed work complies with the construction documents since if it does not it increases the likelihood that the designer will be embroiled in litigation or other efforts to sort out the problems. Designers also recognize the need to comply with the building code.

A ,hopefully small, part of the problem is when building department personnel "harbor perceptions that are gravely misaligned with the facts" and let those perceptions cause them to impose their personal perceptions on the project. The building department is charged with enforcing the building code. The plan checkers and inspectors are not empowered to be saviors. protecting everybody from all perceived problems. Focus on the adopted code not what you believe it should be.

Hopefuly both the designers and the building departments perceptions will be compatible. I believe the adopted codes are a reflection of a common understanding.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

A ,hopefully small, part of the problem is when building department personnel "harbor perceptions that are gravely misaligned with the facts" and let those perceptions cause them to impose their personal perceptions on the project. The building department is charged with enforcing the building code. The plan checkers and inspectors are not empowered to be saviors. protecting everybody from all perceived problems. Focus on the adopted code not what you believe it should be.

As I believe I have commented in other discussions, one of our former state building inspectors often reminded us at in-service training classes that "The code is the least you can accept, and the most you can require." It may sound like that's establishing a ridiculously narrow window of compliance, but there's nothing that says a design can't exceed the code voluntarily. We just can't require that it exceed the code. Perhaps a project has as a parameter a maximum exit access travel distance of 200 feet and a maximum common path of travel of 75 feet. We can't demand that because of some reason we think makes sense the designer can't provide an exit access travel distance greater than 150 feet, or can't exceed 50 feet for common path of travel. On the other hand, we can't accept an exit access travel distance of 205 feet, or a common path of travel of 80 feet.

But it's the exception rather than the rule when either factor comes out right on the money. If the plans submitted show an exit access travel distance of 175 feet when 200 feet are allowed -- that's better than the code. We're not going to reject the plans and tell the designer to make it 200 feet. Likewise common path of travel. If the plans show a maximum common path of 60 feet where 75 feet is allowed, we'll gladly accept it because it's better than the code requirement.

We're breaking in a new plumbing inspector in our office. When he looks at plumbing drawings during plan review, I have to keep reminding him that we are only checking for code compliance. He can't write something up because he would have done it differently. This is where I keep coming back to what our state's chief prosecutor for building code issues used to tell us in her annual seminars: "If you don't have a code citation, you don't have a violation." When the new guy gives me a comment I think is questionable, I ask him for the code section. If he can't find one -- we don't write it up. He's learning.

 

[jar546]

The statement above is both central and crucial to the discussion. I know a building official who was fired for doing his job. He spent a year prior to the firing being micro-managed and second guessed at every step during the construction process of a project that should have been shut down as soon as it became obvious that the owner/permittee had no intention of paying any attention whatsoever to the building code. Not only did his "management" (the mayor) not have his back -- the administration was more interested in getting the tax dollars flowing and they actively worked to undermine and sabotage their own building official.

Been there, done that when I ran my own third-party agency, and our contract was not renewed. I'd rather do my job, be fair and consistent, and treat everyone equally, even if it means I have to work a little harder replacing lost contracts. I slept well at night, knowing that my staff and I did exactly what we were supposed to rather than turn a blind eye every time there was some political pressure. I have been pulled into a councilman's private office and told to leave certain people alone and let them do what they want. That was nothing compared to some of the other things we were told to do and not do.

At the end of the day, there is the law and going to bed knowing you did exactly as you were required and knowing you did not compromise your ethics and values for the sake of some small-town politician. For those who continue to look for excuses as to why they don't have to do something out of perceived or real fear of retaliation, I have no respect for you. I held my ground, which forced me to work harder, but at the end of the day, there were plenty of municipalities with elected officials who appreciated our efforts.

 

[jar546]

Hopefuly both the designers and the building departments perceptions will be compatible. I believe the adopted codes are a reflection of a common understanding.

They should be, providing that both parties are ethically sound and perform their duties to the best of their ability. The building officials, inspectors, and plans examiners should not be swayed by political pressure and the design professional should hold the line with their client, being honest and not intentionally trying to make the building department look like the bad guy, simply because the RDP won't be honest with their client with the fear of losing them.

 

[tmurray]

Here, the authorities of a building officials go directly from the provincial legislature to the building official. The local politician cannot interfere in the legislated duties of the building officials.

This might not prevent every small-town politician for firing a building official not doing exactly what they say, but it sure makes the wrongful dismissal case a lot easier and there is plenty of case law of municipalities paying out to building officials who were either fired or forced out because they would not heed to the whims of politicians.

I think it goes beyond this though. Sometimes, I think people get into the industry because of the allure of power. They think they can just walk in and tell someone they have to do something and the person will just do it. In reality, there are plenty of disagreements and deceit. People don't have the skills for conflict resolution or are conflict adverse.

The easiest way to avoid conflict is to go through the mental gymnastics of why you should just accept something that is obviously non-compliant.

 

[Sifu]

I am lazy. I don't want plans back for a 2nd or 3rd submittal. I want to approve every one, the first time. I am also determined to administer the code, as it is written. Lazy loses every time. I write comments, read them through, re-write them, research them, try to find any reason to delete them, anticipate the response, and re-write them in a way that may lead to success. (This process is what leads to so many of my code related questions on this forum.) I don't worry about losing my job, not because it can't happen, but because I know it can and there is nothing I am capable of doing to prevent it. I have no illusion of power, in fact it irks me to think about it. Just yesterday someone said the "you are going to make me do that" phrase. I said I have no authority to make them do anything, and in fact don't want it. I ultimately have a simple job; try to determine if a proposed condition is consistent with code. The simple job gets harder and longer when politics come into play, so I resist that at every turn. That is where lazy comes back in.