Unvarnished truth. It ain't pretty.

This is a response to a post by Jar546, the forum owner. I came here with it because Jeff doesn’t appreciate my rough hewn opinion. Besides that, his post is a work of art…. I mean it…. You can tell that he put time into that one. I just didn’t want to dirty it up.

So the aforementioned tome by Jar546 is about the beauty of his operation with a computer as the main focus. His office runs like a well oiled helicopter… he knows how that can go. You might do well to now take a look at his post {-here-}. It is an achievement that the airline industry could learn from. In fact, that might be where these computer programs are born.

Well anyway, here goes. For decades I left the office at 9:00am and performed the inspections assigned to me. If I left a route slip, there was no order to it. Nobody knew where I was or what I was doing. If the office called my cell phone I had the option of not answering. If a contractor called my cell phone he found out why he should not call my cell phone. And now that you mentioned cell phones, until the last two years, my County issued phone was a Nokia brick....not even close to smart.

By the time I got to post #4 I had a vision of an office filled with people that had their hair on fire. "Tell me now. Right now! I can’t wait. Don’t make me wait. Ohhh! Did I pass inspection?" "Well sir we can see the inspector's GPS and he's still in your driveway, but hold on for a rainbow from the Cloud." "There do you see it? Congratulations Sir, You passed."
Of course the inspector was Anglia and she does not have a clue about service panels.... but that's our little secret. And they think that it is a secret ... contractors know. As long as they know immediately it’s all good.

Jurisdictions across the land are spending on these computer programs and the hardware that uses them while the inspectors are horribly unqualified. Fixing what ain't broke and missing the obvious deficiencies is how I see this. The level of expertise among building department staff has plummeted while the efficiency of the inept effort has reached new heights. But hey now, that contractor can get a result within seconds....it's too bad that the result is worthless.

So now that I have given my typical negative take on your best work .... put your thinking hat on ... or perhaps you prefer a helmet. I look at what you have created and can't help but think that if there was just a little more trust in the inspectors, such a tight leash wouldn't be a necessity.... but then you know them better than I do.

There are a few dozen inspectors and building officials that are regulars at this forum. There's a few hundred thousand that are not. Roses they are, in a field of milk weed. It is in a vast sea of mediocrity that you will find what I am telling you.
I swam in that sea. I know what passes for a building department, what inspectors are like in the wild. My kindest description would be to say that it is a cruel hoax.

As an aside, how does an inspector enter the time spent getting a haircut?

 

[Joe.B]

 

[ICE]

View attachment 15792

Right you are. This is not new.... do you find it offensive?.

 

[Joe.B]

Right you are. This is not new.... do you find it offensive?.

Not at all. Thanks for asking though.

 

[Joe.B]

 

[Joe.B]

 

[Joe.B]

I'm sorry @ICE I guess I'm getting lazy and not taking the effort to actually reply with thought and intention. You'd never guess it, but I tend to be the class clown, I try to lighten it up. It's probably just annoying. So, I'm sorry.

I don't doubt your experience, but I don't think the picture you paint is an accurate representation of what other's experience. But that's the thing, nobodies' perspective will ever be. No offence intended, or taken.

 

[ICE]

I don't think the picture you paint is an accurate representation of what other's experience

I hope not for their sake. What I do know for sure comes from my experience from decades of employment with LA County Public Works as a building inspector. After retiring from LA County I hired on with a 3rd party to serve as a replacement inspector when needed. I was sent to quite a few Southern California cities and counties. The stories this experience produced borders on the surreal. There's a lot of them too. But this is not the forum for that. This forum is where the Roses flourish. So now and then I pulled a few weeds. I suppose that's because I lived it different than most everyone that comes here. In fact I do not find a kindred spirit at all.

Admittedly, I set the bar higher than would be considered fair... at least that's the description used by management when I was investigated. One thing I do not do is exaggerate. Oh, I will not tell a lie either.

 

[Joe.B]

One thing I do not do is exaggerate. Oh, I will not tell a lie either.

Again, it's all about perspective. It's not a lie if you believe it to be true.

 

[jar546]

Appreciate the candid take. I’ve read enough of your posts to know your style is always rough and negative, so I’m not surprised. I know you’ve spent a career in the trenches and got a thousand stories from LA County. I respect that. Experience matters, and guys like you helped shape the industry. But let’s be honest about something. You don’t set the bar, and no one does. There are a lot of highly competent inspectors out there who could run circles around both of us. I’ve worked with them and watched them handle complex inspections with precision and professionalism. They’re not rare. They’re just not loud about it.

What I posted wasn’t about control, and it wasn’t about appeasing contractors either. It’s about coordination. Most of us are running understaffed departments, dealing with tight budgets, and trying to deliver results without burning out the crew. When inspectors leave the office, we need to know what’s going on. Not because we’re trying to micromanage, but because we have to plan payroll, respond to the public, and justify the need for more positions. Programs like this help make that happen. If we’re not collecting data, we’re flying blind.

And yeah, customer service matters. This is local government. We serve the public. That doesn’t mean giving in to unreasonable demands, but it does mean being responsive, accurate, and fair. The software helps with that. The point is to run a department that functions well, not one that gets by on memories of how it used to be done.

I’ve worked with plenty of old, crusty inspectors with 40 or 50 years under their belt who should’ve stayed retired the first time. They still think it’s 1977. It’s not. The work has changed, the pace has changed, and the expectations have changed. If someone wants to ignore all that and pretend we’re still using paper route slips and Nokia bricks, they’re welcome to. But I’m not interested in building a museum. I’m building something that works now.

 

[tmurray]

I’ve worked with plenty of old, crusty inspectors with 40 or 50 years under their belt who should’ve stayed retired the first time. They still think it’s 1977. It’s not. The work has changed, the pace has changed, and the expectations have changed. If someone wants to ignore all that and pretend we’re still using paper route slips and Nokia bricks, they’re welcome to. But I’m not interested in building a museum. I’m building something that works now.

Evolve or go extinct.

I also can't agree with ICE's post that "it used to be better", because here it really wasn't.

Certification requirements here went from you have as long as you want to write the test, the trainer stands over your shoulder while you take it to make sure you're not making mistakes, and then marks it (no conflict of interest there right?), to now where tests are computer administered with strict time limits enforced.

When I got into the inspection industry 15 years ago, I was chatting with some of the "best" inspectors in our province. I asked how often they were finding issues with sprinkler system installations, because I kept finding deficiencies. The look I got from these top members of the community was the traditional "deer in the headlights". They each responded with some type of "you don't need to inspect those because they get signed off by an engineer". Great. So the engineer can sign away a violation of NFPA 13? I don't think so.

Like many here, my role has evolved. From inspector to municipal CBO to provincial CBO. Joe.B's comments on perception are apt. I get to look under to hood of any department in my province. The reality is, the real differences in performance between jurisdictions is based mostly on one thing and one thing only: leadership. Money helps, but money without leadership is pointless. You don't know where or how to spend it. Departments with good leadership overwhelmingly deliver better performing review and inspection regimes. Good leaders are a choice for jurisdictions. Good leaders are hard to get and harder to keep. Most jurisdictions are either too lazy or just not interested in keeping good leaders.

Contractors get worse when building inspectors get worse. Building inspectors get worse under poor leadership. Building department leadership gets poor when the elected officials stop understanding the purpose of the building department. It is our responsibility to continuously remind elected officials that the ultimate purpose of a building department is to provide for the safety of the public, and to do that, sometimes people get upset. But, an upset person is better than a dead person.

 

[jar546]

Contractors get worse when building inspectors get worse. Building inspectors get worse under poor leadership. Building department leadership gets poor when the elected officials stop understanding the purpose of the building department. It is our responsibility to continuously remind elected officials that the ultimate purpose of a building department is to provide for the safety of the public, and to do that, sometimes people get upset. But, an upset person is better than a dead person.

This statement needs to be engraved in stone and put in a national park.

 

[steveray]

Evolve or go extinct.

I also can't agree with ICE's post that "it used to be better", because here it really wasn't.

Certification requirements here went from you have as long as you want to write the test, the trainer stands over your shoulder while you take it to make sure you're not making mistakes, and then marks it (no conflict of interest there right?), to now where tests are computer administered with strict time limits enforced.

When I got into the inspection industry 15 years ago, I was chatting with some of the "best" inspectors in our province. I asked how often they were finding issues with sprinkler system installations, because I kept finding deficiencies. The look I got from these top members of the community was the traditional "deer in the headlights". They each responded with some type of "you don't need to inspect those because they get signed off by an engineer". Great. So the engineer can sign away a violation of NFPA 13? I don't think so.

Like many here, my role has evolved. From inspector to municipal CBO to provincial CBO. Joe.B's comments on perception are apt. I get to look under to hood of any department in my province. The reality is, the real differences in performance between jurisdictions is based mostly on one thing and one thing only: leadership. Money helps, but money without leadership is pointless. You don't know where or how to spend it. Departments with good leadership overwhelmingly deliver better performing review and inspection regimes. Good leaders are a choice for jurisdictions. Good leaders are hard to get and harder to keep. Most jurisdictions are either too lazy or just not interested in keeping good leaders.

Contractors get worse when building inspectors get worse. Building inspectors get worse under poor leadership. Building department leadership gets poor when the elected officials stop understanding the purpose of the building department. It is our responsibility to continuously remind elected officials that the ultimate purpose of a building department is to provide for the safety of the public, and to do that, sometimes people get upset. But, an upset person is better than a dead person.

Now I am definitely moving to Canada....And that is really well said..

I will diverge a bit and jump on to ICE's side...In my world it is worse that it was. And industry wide I believe it is worse than what most of us believe. The things I see missed by "national" designers and national construction companies is scary. Why do they miss it? Because they are too lazy to be good at their job? Too unintelligent? Too busy? I honestly don't know...But I do know they got away with it several times before they got to me....And when we catch it on the plans or in the field, they blame us. The reality is that at least one or two professionals at a typically higher payscale than us missed it before it even came to us...

 

[tmurray]

I will diverge a bit and jump on to ICE's side...In my world it is worse that it was. And industry wide I believe it is worse than what most of us believe. The things I see missed by "national" designers and national construction companies is scary. Why do they miss it? Because they are too lazy to be good at their job? Too unintelligent? Too busy? I honestly don't know...But I do know they got away with it several times before they got to me....And when we catch it on the plans or in the field, they blame us. The reality is that at least one or two professionals at a typically higher payscale than us missed it before it even came to us...

There is an assumption in there that plan reviewers and inspectors are responsible to detect and require the correction of all deficiencies. To evaluate this assumption, I will rely on the Canadian Court system since we do not have statutory immunity in Canada, these claims have actually been tested in court.

Basically, only code violations that a "reasonable person" would detect are expected to be detected by plan reviewers and building inspectors. For correction of deficiencies, the cost of corrections, gravity of harm, and likelihood of harm must be considered. Furthermore, deficiencies that occurred and were subsequently covered between required inspections of a reasonable inspection regime result in no liability for the building inspector, unless they had reason to suspect they were there.

So, the designer and builder have a legal responsibility to produce work in conformance with the code, but plan reviewers and building inspectors are not necessarily responsible for identifying and requiring all code deficiencies to be corrected.

In discussing this with the contractor community, the best way I can put it is like this. There are three reasons why you perceive differences in code requirements between jurisdiction (we have a province-wide code):
1. An inspector is actually asking for something that is not code required (appeal them).
2. An inspector noted a violation that is not an enforcement priority in another jurisdiction (jurisdictions can tailor their enforcement regime to the issues they see in their jurisdiction).
3. An inspector did note this as a violation in another jurisdiction, but they didn't class the risk high enough to warrant correction (typically because there were higher priority corrections).

Note, if the plans were drawn to code and the contractor built to code, the only inconsistency between jurisdictions would be in situation #1. They would never notice #2 or #3.

Whenever you hear the "but they didn't make me do that over there" type of complaint/excuse, it is the contractor trying to re-locate their responsibility to build to code onto the plan reviewer/inspector.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I will diverge a bit and jump on to ICE's side...In my world it is worse that it was. And industry wide I believe it is worse than what most of us believe. The things I see missed by "national" designers and national construction companies is scary. Why do they miss it? Because they are too lazy to be good at their job? Too unintelligent? Too busy? I honestly don't know...But I do know they got away with it several times before they got to me....And when we catch it on the plans or in the field, they blame us. The reality is that at least one or two professionals at a typically higher payscale than us missed it before it even came to us...

Architects and engineers produce poor construction documents because our colleagues allow it. There are code officials out there today (I know some) who rubber stamp anything that has an architect's or engineer's seal and signature on it. Should they? I say no. I've been at my present position for your years as of the end of this month. 90+ percent of what I do is commercial and institutional plan reviews -- the kinds of projects drawn up by architects and engineers. In those four years, I don't think there has been one project that I approved the construction documents for on the first try. Far too many require three or four tries -- a couple have required SIX rounds of revisions before the boss and I felt we could issue a permit -- and we had to hold our noses while doing it.

Decades ago, the federal government ruled that the AIA recommended fee schedule was unlawful price fixing, so the idea of charging a known percentage of the construction cost went out the window and now architects (and engineers) have to compete for projects on the basis of price fees. It's a race to the bottom. They all quote an unrealistic fee to get the job, then they have to do inadequate construction documents because there isn't enough money to do it right. Many of them know this going in -- they expect to get denied, and then they charge the client extra for the revisions because "The Building Department demanded a lot of extra information on the plans."

So then the clients complain to the administration because the building department is "driving up costs and delaying projects." Good administrations understand what's happening and ignore those complaints. The new administration in the town where I work listens to the complaints -- and ignores detailed enumerations of code violations. "I don't care about that -- just make it go away" is the prevailing attitude.

Some of the architects know better and just play the game because they have to. Others, unfortunately, really are that stupid. Like the guy who had exit access to the second exit passing through the first exit. When I pointed out multiple code sections that say you can't do that -- he was genuinely astonished. He didn't have a clue that exits need to be remote.

I write detailed plan reviews, citing code sections. Even so, we invariably get push-back. "They don't make me do that in [_____]" is the favored response. Yeah, we know they don't make you do that in [_____] -- but it's in the code, which means you should be doing it in [_____] even if they don't tell you you have to. Unfortunately, today the design professionals are more interested in how much they can leave out of the construction documents than they are in doing their jobs right. Plus, many of them (especially those who went to Ivy League schools) still see themselves only as designers -- they think doing working drawings is beneath their station in life.

 

[steveray]

There is an assumption in there that plan reviewers and inspectors are responsible to detect and require the correction of all deficiencies. To evaluate this assumption, I will rely on the Canadian Court system since we do not have statutory immunity in Canada, these claims have actually been tested in court.

Basically, only code violations that a "reasonable person" would detect are expected to be detected by plan reviewers and building inspectors. For correction of deficiencies, the cost of corrections, gravity of harm, and likelihood of harm must be considered. Furthermore, deficiencies that occurred and were subsequently covered between required inspections of a reasonable inspection regime result in no liability for the building inspector, unless they had reason to suspect they were there.

So, the designer and builder have a legal responsibility to produce work in conformance with the code, but plan reviewers and building inspectors are not necessarily responsible for identifying and requiring all code deficiencies to be corrected.

In discussing this with the contractor community, the best way I can put it is like this. There are three reasons why you perceive differences in code requirements between jurisdiction (we have a province-wide code):
1. An inspector is actually asking for something that is not code required (appeal them).
2. An inspector noted a violation that is not an enforcement priority in another jurisdiction (jurisdictions can tailor their enforcement regime to the issues they see in their jurisdiction).
3. An inspector did note this as a violation in another jurisdiction, but they didn't class the risk high enough to warrant correction (typically because there were higher priority corrections).

Note, if the plans were drawn to code and the contractor built to code, the only inconsistency between jurisdictions would be in situation #1. They would never notice #2 or #3.

Whenever you hear the "but they didn't make me do that over there" type of complaint/excuse, it is the contractor trying to re-locate their responsibility to build to code onto the plan reviewer/inspector.

​

We will have to see how it plays out in US courts, here is the language I believe makes it tricky for us and makes it a ministerial act:

[A]​

The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to adopt policies and procedures to clarify the application of its provisions. Such policies and procedures shall comply with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code, nor shall they have the effect of establishing requirements in excess of those set forth in this code.

As I have said elsewhere, there was just a $400,000 settlement in CT for a drowning in a pool that was permitted, but never inspected or approved...While the inspector may not be personally liable, not sure what that does to his career or the desire to go into a career that is setting you up for failure....

 

[ICE]

I’ve worked with plenty of old, crusty inspectors with 40 or 50 years under their belt who should’ve stayed retired the first time.

You do not handle criticism well. My post is an indictment of the industry at large. It just so happens that your example is the refined goal of many building departments. While the utility of such a masterful collection of data is apparent, perhaps having inspectors that can inspect a water heater is worth pursuing. Maybe give them a ladder to get over the bar.

 

[tmurray]

​

We will have to see how it plays out in US courts, here is the language I believe makes it tricky for us and makes it a ministerial act:

[A]​

The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to adopt policies and procedures to clarify the application of its provisions. Such policies and procedures shall comply with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code, nor shall they have the effect of establishing requirements in excess of those set forth in this code.

As I have said elsewhere, there was just a $400,000 settlement in CT for a drowning in a pool that was permitted, but never inspected or approved...While the inspector may not be personally liable, not sure what that does to his career or the desire to go into a career that is setting you up for failure....

There is similar language here. Courts have had to navigate what it means to be responsible to "enforce" the code here in Canada. Our supreme court carefully articulated the distinction that while we are responsible for enforcing the code, this does not mean we are "insurers of construction". Basically, the fact that there is a code violation is prima facie evidence that the inspector failed to prevent a code violation, however, if the inspector is able to demonstrate that they carried out their work with the appropriate level of care, this liability can be fully mitigated.

The reasoning for this is that it would bankrupt every single building department in the country if they were financially responsible for every single code violation. The importance of a public safety regime for construction needs to be balanced with individual damages. These same concerns existed in the United States, but lead to statutory immunity, rather than the adoption of the Anns test.

Here, an inspector can be held liable, but is typically protected by their employer through vicarious liability. It is only when they step outside of their regular duties that they are no longer protected.

 

[Yikes]

Decades ago, the federal government ruled that the AIA recommended fee schedule was unlawful price fixing, so the idea of charging a known percentage of the construction cost went out the window and now architects (and engineers) have to compete for projects on the basis of price fees. It's a race to the bottom. They all quote an unrealistic fee to get the job, then they have to do inadequate construction documents because there isn't enough money to do it right. Many of them know this going in -- they expect to get denied, and then they charge the client extra for the revisions because "The Building Department demanded a lot of extra information on the plans."

I live in a geographic area of Southern California that has a large immigrant community. There are developers that utilize design and drafting services offshored in their home country, to be stamped by a local DPOR.
Our firm was once asked to give a fee proposal for a large hotel in town. The immigrant developer was shocked at our fee. We explained that planning and design review required extensive entitlement drawings. He said he could get drawings from overseas for 1% of the construction cost, and that the design didn't matter anyway because the city planning staff would tell him what to do.
We talked about quality construction documents saving him money during construction. He responded that the city inspectors would catch all the problems for him, and if he had to tear something out and rebuild it, it would still cost him less than paying for a fully developed and coordinated set of plans.

 

[jar546]

You do not handle criticism well. My post is an indictment of the industry at large. It just so happens that your example is the refined goal of many building departments. While the utility of such a masterful collection of data is apparent, perhaps having inspectors that can inspect a water heater is worth pursuing. Maybe give them a ladder to get over the bar.

Your original post wasn’t just an indictment of the industry; it took plenty of shots, including at the people doing the work today. I gave a real-world example of how departments adapt and tried to have an honest conversation about how things are changing. You didn’t like that I pushed back, and that’s fine. But don’t confuse disagreement with being thin-skinned. I stand by what I said.

 

[steveray]

You do not handle criticism well. My post is an indictment of the industry at large. It just so happens that your example is the refined goal of many building departments. While the utility of such a masterful collection of data is apparent, perhaps having inspectors that can inspect a water heater is worth pursuing. Maybe give them a ladder to get over the bar.

I know it is not the case with Jeff, but far too many people are interested in looking good than being good....Hence social media.... And the "talent/ skill bubble" is about to burst...

 

[ICE]

Throttling takes away the incentive to participate.... so I guess it works hey.

 

[steveray]

Throttling takes away the incentive to participate.... so I guess it works hey.

Apathy is a wonderful thing for those driving the bus....

 

[jar546]

Throttling takes away the incentive to participate.... so I guess it works hey.

"Throttled," huh? Sounds like you're imagining yourself in one of my inspector seats and realizing you wouldn’t like the accountability that comes with it. I get it. If you’re used to disappearing into the wind with a Nokia and a clipboard, this probably feels like handcuffs. But what you call throttling, most of us call leadership. It’s about knowing where your team is, what they’re dealing with, and stepping in when someone is buried with complex inspections so the rest of the team can pick up the slack. That’s how you keep things moving. I learned that kind of teamwork in the Marine Corps, and I apply those winning ways every day. There’s no I in team, and a good department doesn’t leave anyone behind. That’s not control. That’s coordination. That’s professionalism.