June 4, 2009 Personal Attacks Fly in Response to Boards Decision to Play Building Expert. Safety First- Apply your foil helmets, chinstraps- check! Read this Bulletin Board Post Battle Between Citizens and Anonymous Board of Supervisors Members & County Senior Management- Might as well read it, you are paying for it. CLICK HERE Why Is the Tainted Santa Cruz County Planning Commission UnFair? -Why did the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors appoint Neal Connerty's aide Rachel Dann for Appointment to the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission? -Why did the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors appoint Supervisor Ellen Pires' unqualified husband Terry Hancock for Appointment to the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission? - Why did the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors appoint Supervisor Tony Campos aide Gustavo Gonzalez for Appointment to the Santa Cruz County Planning Commission? This is NOT the best or brightest that our diverse and talented COUNTY has to offer- Just Completely Brazen Bureaucrats in their PERMANENT POWER GRAB They just insure more of the same from more of the same Why and How can this Happen? How and Where do the Citizens get a fair hearing? The Same Bureaucrats control the entire system- making an INDEPENDENT, PROFESSIONAL ans QUALIFIED Board such as the Building, Accessibility and Fire Appeals Board NEEDED for the PUBLIC SAFETY by the citizens. CORRUPTION and CONTROL THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE ALL ABOUT Little wonder why the Bueracrats from Susan Muariello and her Board of Supervisors to her County Counsel to her Planning Deptment throughly affraid- Daylight and transparanccy is designed to prevent, indenfy and eliminate Political Corruption and Control and Control- What an Un-Corrupt Planning Commission Do? The County Planning Commission acts as an advisory body to the County Board of Supervisors on matters concerning growth, development, housing and environmental conservation. The Commission has been established pursuant to the California Government Code and County Code Chapter 2.74. The Planning Commission is composed of five members and five alternates; one of each from the five Supervisorial Districts. The Board of Supervisors appoints these commissioners and alternates for a period of four years. The functions of the Planning Commission include the following:
Current Planning Commission Members via http://www.votescount.com/districts/appcounty.htm
Ask Tony Why? Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
|
Fourth District Supervisor Tony Campos|
Main Office: |
Watsonville Office: |
| District 1 John Leopold |
District 2 Ellen Pirie |
District 3 Neal Coonerty |
District 4 Tony Campos |
District 5 Mark Stone |
Return to District Map Page
ReturnHIS County Planning Department
.... So What if Tony Campos has to leave for one his many conflicts of interest, when it gets to the Board of Supervisors, Gustavo Gonzalez has already cast his vote!
Poor Clares property gets OK for affordable housing
SANTA CRUZ -- Several dozen residents of the Seacliff community spoke out Wednesday, many angrily, against a proposal that could put affordable housing, as well as a hotel and offices, on a 13-acre site in their coastal neighborhood.
"The thought of more people living in our tiny little community sends us reeling," said Sea Ridge Road resident Doug Capentier. "There is no more room for more people and more cars."
Despite the protest, the county Planning Commission at its regular meeting approved the controversial plan to rezone the now mostly barren property. The rezoning would allow for an 80-unit high-density housing complex, a 150-room hotel and a mix of professional and medical offices.
The commission's decision moves the issue before the Board of Supervisors, which has final say over the property.
The land, long known as the Poor Clares property, is owned by Dominican Hospital.
No plans to build on the Poor Clares property have been submitted, but a state law requiring area to be set aside for housing prompted county planners to push for the rezoning.
"We have a gun to our head," said planning commissioner Steve Kennedy, acknowledging the proposal's unpopularity. "I think it's terrible but that's the reality we're dealing with."
Dominican Hospital has been supportive of the zoning change so long as the hospital is afforded space to build medical offices on the site, which could include room for doctors, a clinic and a pharmacy.
As part of the commission's approval Wednesday, commissioners asked the hospital to build the housing for seniors, a request meant to limit additional traffic that development would bring. The push for seniors, who tend not to drive as much, is now in the hands of the five-member Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Ellen Pirie, who represents the Seacliff community, has already said her vote for the proposal is contingent upon the hospital's commitment to senior housing.
Brian Knecht, Dominican Hospital's chief operating officer, however, indicated at Wednesday's meeting that the hospital wasn't interested in having its options limited.
The hospital has provided no timeline for any of the development. All of the work would require additional review before construction could proceed.
The Poor Clares property is the fifth site the Planning Commission has approved as part of the county's effort to designate 30 acres for high density housing by the state's June deadline. The sixth and final site, on Atkinson Lane in Watsonville, will be considered next month.
The six sites were selected by the Board of Supervisors after a series of community meetings in 2007.
Seacliff residents, who have submitted a petition with more than 400 signatures against rezoning Poor Clares, cited increased traffic, additional demands on the water supply and the elimination of open space as problems with any new development.
The roughly 600-member Coastlands Church, which currently rents former convent buildings on the site, also would face an uncertain future if development proceeds.
About 50 residents were present at Wednesday's meeting to make their case against the proposal.
But the commission voted 3-2 to back the plan, with Kennedy, Albert Aramburu and Gustavo Gonzalez in favor and Denise Holbert and Myrna Britton in opposition.
A minority public voice in support of the proposal came from the community group COPA, Communities Organized for Relational Power.
Member Gus Gold said Wednesday that county residents are largely in favor of affordable housing, but the problem is nobody ever wants it in their backyard.
"Following that, that would mean there would be no place for affordable housing," he said.
Both doing the exact same job as Field Building Inspectors for the County of Santa Cruz.
Here is what happens when an NON-INSIDER Employee X, with absolutely no negative issues related to job performance or propriety EVER- uses his County Issued Cell Phone while on Workers Comp leave.
On medical leave after a slip and fall that happened on a wet plastic tarp during the course of performing a Building Inspection for the County of Santa Cruz Planning Department at a home in Pasatiempo.
Employee X was specifically told HE WAS REQUIRED TO KEEP THE PHONE WITH HIM (and charged) WHILE ON LEAVE-
BY JENIFFER HUTCHINSON!!!
The cell phone was used dozens of times by Jennifer Hutchinson, Planning Department Staff & Contractors, continuing regularly and well after Employee X was forced not to return to work, by Jennifer Hutchinson.
EMPLOYEE X FIELDED ALL OF THESE SPECIFICALLY WORK RELATED CELL PHONE CALLS.
ALL CALLS WERE TAKEN AND ALL QUESTIONS ANSWERED PROMPTLY AND PROFESSIONALLY BY
EMPLOYEE X
AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY OR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT!
So Employee X is injured on the job, continues to work- plan checking to "accommodate" the injured Employee X until he recovered from the industrial injury.
Mysteriously- Employee X is told he would no longer be "accommodated" by Jenifer Hutchinson and subsequently "sent" home from work and told not to return by Jennifer Hutchinson.
Despite many requests for ANY explanation from Hutchinson as to why Employee X was told to leave work- and he could no longer be accommodated, Hutchinson only response was that she said "I do not need to give an explanation- it is my decision and it is final".
NOTE:
The cell phones personal use was required for field Building Inspectors. When Employee X started he was carrying two phones, "personal" and "county issue". I was made quite clear to Planning Management the he was divorced and has three children. He was the primary caregiver for three children necessitating he be contacted by his childrens' schools, childcare provides or any other emergency.
Employee X was told by Jennifer Hutchinson, Jim Heaney and John Sears that he could use his "county" cell phone only. Personal calls were billed monthly and paid for by the Building Inspector.
Due to his extensive "on the job" SEIU Union "work" and his extensive phone use for "union" activities, Jim Heaney persuaded Bettie Shackleford, Planning Department fiscal staff, to arrange the cell phone plan as to no longer require individual Building Inspectors to be responsible for ANY calls.
They never again even had to go through the monthly cell phone bills, marking and paying for the call's made over the preceding 3 months or so, and all on COUNTY TIME, and NOT INSPECTING BUILDINGS!
Gone where the times trying to recall if it was a Contractor's number, Childrens' school or a childcare provider's cell phone for EVERY call made- a complete Bureaucratic time waste for minuscule return, and again all at the taxpayer's expense. (Sadly true to County form- This exercise in bureaucratic insanity continued with the Building Inspector's "office" phone) .
Continuous Possessions of Inspector's Cell Phone was required as well as driving and storing their County vehicles at their home.
This was to facilitate quicker response an emergency- A 24 hour on call with no pay arrangement- "POLICY" made by the Planning Department (both policies questioned by Employee X- who was again instructed that these were "job "requirements" for being a Field Building Inspector.)
Employee X receives this "Written Warning" from Building Inspector Jennifer Hutchinson
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ |
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 25, 2006
To: Vincent LoFranco – Building Inspector
From: Jennifer Hutchinson – Chief Building Official
Re: Written Warning
This letter is to make clear my expectations of you relative to the appropriate use of County equipment and maintaining respectful and civil communication with staff, the public and myself.
In March, 2006 it was brought to my attention by Nancy McCollum, our Fiscal Officer, that ISD - Telecom had notified us of unusual and excessive use of a cell phone assigned to Planning: cell phone number 566-7329, which was your assigned phone. There were a total of 901 telephone calls and 180 text messages for a two-month period on the bill, which is an extraordinarily large number. At the time you were, and still are, on a worker’s compensation medical leave. As you will recall, on March 21, 2006, I called you and had a conversation with you regarding the inappropriate use of the cell phone during your medical leave of absence. You protested and argued that it was completely appropriate because there was a Building Inspection Section policy that use of cell phones for business and personal use was allowed because you had been told there was no cost due to the minutes allowed in the phone plan. The manner in which you informed me of this was confrontational. I informed you that I was aware of this unwritten policy, but that it was not reasonable of you to think that this was appropriate given that you were not working at the time. I told you to turn off the telephone and discontinue its use.
On March 23, 2006, I left you a telephone message at home directing you to return the cell phone to my office that day or the following day. On March 24, 2006 you left me a telephone message informing me that you had received my request, but you were recovering from a medical procedure from the previous day and did not feel well enough to return the cell phone. From past experience, you have recovered from the injection procedure in a few days. Therefore, I had a reasonable expectation that you would return the phone in a few days. I neither heard from you nor did you return the phone. Not returning the phone as soon as you were able, and not contacting me to advise me if you were physically unable to comply, constitutes a refusal to comply with a directive from your supervisor and is considered insubordination.
Subsequently, a letter was prepared addressing several issues of concern to the Department. That letter, dated April 21, 2006, was written by Tom Burns, the Planning Director, and reiterated the directive to return the cell phone, which you again failed to do. A copy of Mr. Burn’s letter is attached.
In addition, attached is a memo from a Building Inspection staff meeting held on April 11, 2006, in your absence, directing Inspection staff to stop using the cell phones for personal use except for urgent matters or emergencies.
I have concerns about your performance and ability to reason things through before you react. I would like to remind you of a written summary of a meeting we had on 4/27/04 where your probation was extended 60 days due to poor performance and judgment regarding several issues. The particular events discussed in that meeting summary are not relevant here except you were told at that time of the importance of exercising better judgment. The decision to use the cell phone during a time when you were not even working and then to argue disrespectfully about it lacks judgment. Your refusal to return the phone, following both a verbal and a written directive, increases my concerns about your ability to take direct supervision.
As a result of the above situation(s), this memo shall serve as a written warning.
In the future you are expected to abide by the following job standards:
1. Read the Department policy manual and comply with all the procedures contained therein;
2. Abide by Department policies regarding use of all county equipment;
3. You are expected to work with your supervisor in a courteous and respectful manner and, while you are welcome to share concerns with regard to directions, in the end you need to follow the ultimate decisions of your superiors without argument;
4. You need to refrain from aggressive body language and being argumentative or interrupting others who are speaking to you. In general, you are expected to remain civil and speak in an ordinary tone and be respectful with anyone you encounter during your work.
This letter is only a warning and will not be placed in your personnel file. Persistent actions of this nature could result in further disciplinary action.
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Date |
Employee "Y"
INSIDER
DRUNK DRIVING CONVICTION, DUE TO IMPAIRED DRIVING AFTER COUNTY PLANNING CHRISTMAS PARTY.
Employee "Y" LOST HIS DRIVING "PRIVILEGED" AND LICENSE.
Employee "Y" REPORTED his Drunk Driving ARREST to his EMPLOYER MONTHS LATER.
....AND BOY WAS Employee "Y" "ACCOMMODATED" by Tom Burns, Dania Torres-Wong, Jennifer Hutchinson.
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ |
anning Department |
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 3, 2006
To: Jim Heaney, Building Inspector
From: Jennifer Hutchinson, Building Official
Re: Driver’s License
The purpose of this memo is to document our conversation earlier this month regarding your DUI arrest in December and the possibility that you may lose your driving privileges as a result. You indicated to me that you presently posses a valid California driver’s license that allows you to drive a vehicle and perform your duties as a building inspector in the field. If your driving privileges are revoked at any time in the future, either by the Department of Motor Vehicles or as a result of court action, you are required to notify me within one working day and to immediately discontinue operating a County Vehicle. Failure to notify me of any driver license revocation or suspension or actually driving without a license would be grounds for immediate disciplinary action up to and including the possibility of dismissal.
I have reviewed this memo, understand the contents, and have received a copy.
__________________________ __________________________
JimHeaney Date JenniferHutchinson Date
Chapter 2
New Job for Employee Y to "accomadate" his drunk driving
"one Inspector recently lost his driver’s license and is assigned to perform plan check duties in the Office and is not available to assist with field inspections. With your help, we expect to move the Building Inspector who lost his license into a newly created ½ time Plan Check position, " -Tom Burns to County Personel Director Dania Torres-Wong
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ |
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 5, 2006
To: Dania Torres-Wong, Personnel Director
From: Tom Burns, Planning Director
Re: Certification of the existing Building Inspector list
The Planning Department has 8 budgeted Building Inspector positions. Presently, we have only 5 inspectors covering the inspection workload for the entire County. We are 3 field inspectors short right now due to a variety of circumstances. One position is vacant; one Inspector is out on medical leave due to an injury; and one Inspector recently lost his driver’s license and is assigned to perform plan check duties in the Office and is not available to assist with field inspections. With your help, we expect to move the Building Inspector who lost his license into a newly created ½ time Plan Check position, which will create a second Building Inspector vacancy. It is uncertain when the injured employee will be medically cleared to full-time duty. His return date has been extended on a couple of occasions.
Therefore, we have a critical need to fill our vacancy immediately. We simply cannot adequately perform our duties with the existing staff, and this problem will only intensify as we move into the busy construction season. An illness or vacation puts our entire operation into an overload mode and creates undue stress on the remaining staff. With so much territory and inspections to cover, inspectors are rushed in their inspections, compromising their ability to perform complete and thorough inspections. In addition, this environment is other injury mounting with each passing day. This is a high profile, public safety function that must be adequately staffed.
There is an existing, valid eligibility list with qualified candidates. While not especially diverse from an ethnicity perspective (although there is one protected class employee on the list), there are several experienced and qualified candidates on the list. Based on our prior interviews, we are confident that we can hire an individual that can “hit the ground running” and provide immediate assistance without a significant training period.
Therefore, we are requesting that you certify the list without any further delay, and that you not send letters to those individuals who have already been interviewed by our Department within the past 6 months based on applicable Civil Service Rules. Our Building Official conducted the previous interviews and will conduct these interviews, so she is familiar with the candidates and their qualifications.
Thank you for your assistance.
Chapter 3Employee Y hired AFTER drunk driving arrest over many very Qualified Applicants....
Hand picked for the job-
and Interviewed & hired by Hutchinson. Burns approves and Supports hiring of Employee Y
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ |
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 27, 2007
To: Tom Burns, Planning Director
From: Jennifer Hutchinson, Chief Building Official
Re: Recommendation for Appointment to Building Plans Checker
Selection interviews were held on April 12th, 13th, and 16th to fill a permanent Building Plans Checker position. Laura Brinson, Assistant Civil Engineer, and I conducted the interviews.
The duties assigned to the Building Plan checker position are as follows:
Under general supervision, reviews residential and commercial plans and specifications for conformance with the Uniform Codes, State Energy Regulations, County Ordinances and administrative orders; advises permit applicants concerning compliance with corrections and appropriate construction provisions.
Interview questions were asked to determine each candidate’s skills and abilities in relation to the job. Questions were designed to assist us in determining how the candidates’ qualifications met our needs by discovering the following:
- Understanding of the job of Building Plans Checker.
- Training and experience, especially with respect to blueprint reading and correct code interpretations.
- Experience with the structural and non-structural provisions of building design review.
- Knowledge in each of the uniform codes- building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes.
- Ability to speak effectively
- Ability to work as a team
- Customer Service Skills
Of the ten candidates certified to the Department, all ten were interviewed. Those interviewed were Reina Heim, David Chapman, Richard Hugi, Eugene Kodger, Thomas Kip, Robert Ward, Virgina Bugbee, Luc De Faymoreau, Robin Woodman, and Jim Heaney. There were no protected class candidates on the list.
Based on the interviews, Jim Heaney will best serve the needs of the department. Jim has been a Building Inspector II, inspecting both residential and commercial structures for this municipality for 8 years. He has also been an instructor of the uniform codes at the college level for 7 years. Due to the depth and breadth of this experience, he has an excellent knowledge of the uniform codes, as well as lengthy experience working with the public from the regulatory side.
Of the remaining nine candidates, Robin Woodman was our second strongest candidate. She has been a building inspector and a plans examiner for a municipality in the bay area for 10 years. At one time she had six ICBO certifications. She demonstrated a strong working knowledge of the codes and has experience inspecting residential and commercial structures. In addition, she has owned her own drafting business.
In comparison to our top two choices Reina Heim is currently certified as a plans examiner for a consulting firm and while she has plan checking experience, she did not have more than wood frame experience. She also has not worked for a municipality where the first two candidates had that experience.
Robert Ward has experience as a licensed architect with academic training in engineering and law. He has designed all types of residential and commercial and high-rise buildings. He teaches drafting and blue print reading at the college level.
Thomas Kip was interviewed by telephone. He is currently working for a small municipality in the mid-west. He has training and certifications from a building inspection technology program in the codes we are currently using, and is currently certified in the international code we will adopt and will enforce next year. He has a good working knowledge of the codes and public service but had difficulty focusing on the questions and went off on explanatory tangents and needed to be re-directed.
David Chapman has extensive construction experience as a contractor and has recently completed a training program in Building Inspection Technology and has passed several certification exams. His code knowledge is excellent, however he lacks municipal experience other candidates had.
Richard Hugi has drafting experience and has interacted with municipal permit processing centers from the applicant side of the counter. But he did not demonstrate strong knowledge of the codes.
Eugene Kodger has primarily 38 years of residential drafting design experience and his working knowledge of the codes was limited to residential.
Virginia Bugbee is a recent graduate of a building inspection technology program and is a certified plans examiner. She has some experience working the counter for a California municipality. She has good training, but lacks experience as plans examiner.
Luc De Faymoreau lacks training and working knowledge in the uniform codes. He did not present any experience with commercial construction at all.
In summary, this was a good list and many individuals met the minimum qualifications for the position of Plans Checker. But Jim Heaney was the most qualified, and therefore we are seeking your support for this recommendation to appoint Jim Heaney to the position of Building Plans Checker.
APPROVED:
________________________ ____________
Tom Burns Date
Planning Director
APPROVED:
________________________ ____________
Claire Schwartz Date
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer
Leaving the plan checking job taken from Employee X, Given to Employee Y-now open
.... and they hire another friend of Hutchinson that has not worked in building in the last TEN years- and again over VERY qualified "outsiders" that surly would have lifted the veil of the Planning Departments Ineptness and Corruption.
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
|
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 17, 2007
To: Tom Burns, Planning Director
From: Jennifer Hutchinson, Chief Building Official
Re: Recommendation for Appointment to Building Plans Checker
Selection interviews were held in early April, 2007, to fill a full time, permanent Building Plans Checker position. Jim Heaney, who was in a half-time Plans Checker position, was appointed to the full-time position, which in turn created a half-time vacancy. A new list was requested and certified to the Department with the names of candidates who had indicated an interest in part-time employment. A total of 11 candidates were on the list. Laura Brinson, Assistant Civil Engineer, and I conducted interviews.
The duties assigned to the half-time Building Plan checker position are as follows:
- Under general supervision, reviews residential and commercial plans and specifications for conformance with the Uniform Codes, State Energy Regulations, County Ordinances and administrative orders; advises permit applicants concerning compliance with corrections and appropriate construction provisions.
Interview questions were asked to determine each candidate’s skills and abilities in relation to the job. Questions were designed to assist us in determining how the candidates’ qualifications met our needs by discovering the following:
- Understanding of the job of Building Plans Checker.
- Training and experience, especially with respect to blueprint reading and correct code interpretations.
- Experience with the structural and non-structural provisions of building design review.
- Knowledge in each of the uniform codes- building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes.
- Ability to speak effectively
- Ability to work as a team
- Customer Service Skills
Of the eleven candidates certified to the Department, a total of ten were interviewed. Nine were interviewed in April, and a new candidate, Antranik Kaychian, was interviewed on Tuesday, May 15. Roger Brady, the second new candidate, waived the interview.
Those interviewed were Reina Heim, David Chapman, Richard Hugi, Eugene Kodger, Thomas Kip, Robert Ward, Virgina Bugbee, Luc De Faymoreau, Robin Woodman, and Antranik Kaychian. There were no protected class candidates on the list.
Based on the interviews, Robin Woodman will best serve the needs of the department. She has been a building inspector and a plans examiner for a municipality in the bay area for 10 years. At one time she had six ICBO certifications. She demonstrated a strong working knowledge of the codes and has experience inspecting residential and commercial structures. In addition, she has owned her own drafting business. Due to the depth and breadth of her experience, she has an excellent knowledge of the uniform codes, as well as considerable experience working with the public from the regulatory side.
Reina Heim is currently certified as a plans examiner for a consulting firm and while she has plan checking experience, she did not have more than wood frame experience. She also has not worked for a municipality.
Robert Ward has experience as a licensed architect with academic training in engineering and law. He has designed all types of residential and commercial and high-rise buildings. He teaches drafting and blue print reading at the college level.
Thomas Kip was interviewed by telephone. He is currently working for a small municipality in the mid-west. He has training and certifications from a building inspection technology program in the codes we are currently using, and is currently certified in the international code we will adopt and will enforce next year. He has a good working knowledge of the codes and public service, but had difficulty focusing on the questions and went off on explanatory tangents and needed to be re-directed.
David Chapman has extensive construction experience as a contractor and has recently completed a training program in Building Inspection Technology and has passed several certification exams. His code knowledge is excellent, however he lacks municipal experience.
Richard Hugi has drafting experience and has interacted with municipal permit processing centers from the applicant side of the counter. But he did not demonstrate strong knowledge of the codes.
Eugene Kodger has primarily 38 years of residential drafting design experience and his working knowledge of the codes was limited to residential.
Virginia Bugbee is a recent graduate of a building inspection technology program and is a certified plans examiner. She has some experience working the counter for a California municipality. She has good training, but lacks experience as plans examiner.
Luc De Faymoreau lacks training and working knowledge in the uniform codes. He did not present any experience with commercial construction at all.
Antranik Kaychian had strong structural knowledge, but limited to no experience with other provisions of the building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical codes. He was also looking for a position that included field inspections. Plan Checkers do not perform inspections.
In summary, this was a good list and many individuals met the minimum qualifications for the position of Plans Checker. But Robin Woodman was the most qualified, and therefore we are seeking your support for this recommendation to appoint Robin Woodman to the half-time position of Building Plans Checker.
APPROVED:
________________________ ____________
Tom Burns Date
Planning Director
And Tom Burns tops it all off with a little extra sprinkle of the Taxpayers money - just so they know who butters their bread.
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
|
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 18, 2007
To: Personnel
From: Tom Burns, Planning Director
Re: Advance Step Placement for Robin Woodman
We have recently completed interviews for our half-time Plan Checker position and have selected an individual that we feel best meets our needs at this time. Her name is Robin Woodman. We are offering a Step 3 appointment.
1. Difficulty of Recruitment
Personnel certified a list. In all, there were 11 candidates, 10 of which were willing to interview with us.
2. Advanced Step Starting Salary
Ms. Woodman has over 20 years of experience in the building industry, including experience as a building inspector, plans examiner, and building designer. She worked for the City of Foster City for several years, and ran her own design company. She retired from full-time employment in 1995, at which time she was earning over $35 an hour. Since then, she is working part-time as a designer, and her earnings fluctuate. A step 3 appointment would place her at $28.11 per hour, a salary she is willing to accept.
3. Years of Experience and Qualifications
As noted, Ms. Woodman has over 20 years of experience that encompasses both field inspections and plans review of all types of construction. She has extensive public contact experience and skills. She also had numerous professional certifications demonstrating a broad understanding of and competency in multiple construction codes. Her past experience demonstrates her ability to communicate effectively with professionals- architects and engineers- and perform the detailed work expected of a plans checker. Her references were solid. Ms. Woodman could easily be appointed at step 7, but she is willing to start at a lower rate of pay since she is re-entering public service.
4. Adverse Impact On Incumbents
All other Plans Checkers are at higher steps. Therefore, this appointment will have no adverse impact.
APPROVED:
________________________ ____________
Claire Schwartz Date
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer
The Firing of Employee X, and The Thriving of Employee Y.
Why?
Power- Control- Corruption and because they can.
All with the FULL support of the County Counsel, Susan Muareillo, Personnel Department and The Board of Supervisors....and all to benefit THEM at the taxpayers cost and at the safety of the citizens' expense.
Was it Political or Personal Payback?
http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/GovStream/BDSvData/non_legacy/Minutes/2005/20050816/PDF/020.pdf
CLICK HERE FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPOINTMENT
Tony Campos Picked his OWN Aide Gustavo Gonzalez, Failed Politician, Failed Planning Department Code Compliance Officer, successful loan broker (on COUNTY time and FROM the County's Aptos Office the way it sounds) and He even gets to be on the Regional Transportation Committee when Mr. Tony is off and about...
What does it take to get a GIG like that, Years of hard work and dedication right- WRONG!
What is Mr. Tony Grooming this Aide for? What did Gustavo Gonzalez do for Mr. Tony to get out of this one?
Tony Campos
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ |
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 18, 2005
To: Gustavo Gonzalez, Code Compliance Investigator
From: Tom Burns, Planning Director
Re: Request for Determination Regarding Outside Employment as a Mortgage Broker
This memo is to acknowledge receipt of your request for a written interpretation and application of the Planning Department Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 1.b, regarding Incompatible Activities, relative to outside employment as a mortgage broker while employed as a Code Compliance Investigator with the County of Santa Cruz. This request was received via fax this morning, March 18, at 8:50 am.
I will be out of the office at the beginning of next week, so I will respond to your request upon my return. You will have a written reply no later that Friday, March 25th. You are reminded that you have been directed to cease your activities as a mortgage broker until we have concluded our review of your request.
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
|
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 25, 2005
To: Gustavo Gonzalez, Code Compliance Investigator
From: Tom Burns, Planning Director
Re: Modified Request for Determination Regarding Outside Employment as a Mortgage Broker
This memo is to acknowledge receipt of your memo of March 24 in which you modified your earlier request for a written interpretation regarding the application of the Planning Department’s Incompatible Activities to outside employment as a mortgage broker by proposing to limit your activities to areas outside of the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. In an earlier memo, we indicated that we would prepare a written response by today, Friday March 25; however, based on your modified request, we will need additional time to prepare our response. I am out of the office for most of next week, therefore we will respond no later than April 7th to your modified request.
You are reminded that you have been directed to cease your activities as a mortgage broker until we have concluded our review of your request.
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ |
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 8, 2005
To: Gustavo Gonzales, Code Compliance Officer III
From: Tom Burns, Planning Director
Re: Determination Regarding Outside Employment as a Mortgage Broker
The Planning Department has an adopted policy regarding Incompatible Activities. The most recent policy was adopted on August 2, 1994 (Attachment 1).
On Thursday, March 17, 2005, it came to our attention through an advertisement in a local paper (Attachment 2) that you are now employed as a mortgage broker for the Coast Lending Group, a local mortgage broker.
That same day, you were notified that the Department considers that employment as a mortgage broker while employed as a Code Compliance Investigator III appears to be in conflict with our incompatible activities policy, and you were directed to discontinue such work as a mortgage broker (Attachment 3). In discussions with you that day and at a subsequent meeting, you acknowledged having reviewed the Departmental policy regarding Incompatible Activities.
On Friday, March 18, you requested a written interpretation of the Incompatible Activities Policy as it applies to your current employment as a mortgage broker (Attachment 4). On March 24, you met with your manager, David Laughlin, and David Lee, Assistant Planning Director, and discussed your proposal and the Department’s concerns. Subsequently on March 24, 2005 you revised your request to specify that you would limit your practice as a mortgage broker to properties within the incorporated cities, or outside of Santa Cruz County (Attachment 5). This memo is in response to your revised request.
The following is our interpretation as to why we believe that limited employment as a mortgage broker, while employed as a Code Compliance Investigator III, and subject to certain restrictions, does not appear to be in conflict with our incompatible activities policy. The applicable sections of the incompatible activities statement are highlighted in italics, along with our determination for each item. The conditions and restrictions under which this activity can be allowed are set forth below.
“In addition to activities prohibited by County Code 3.40.020, Incompatible Activities, and Personnel Rules Section 173, the following activities are considered to be incompatible for Planning Department employees:
1. Engagement in any employment, activity, or enterprise for compensation that is inconsistent with, or inimical to, the duties of the employee of the Department, or with the duties, functions or responsibilities of the appointing authority or the Department. “
Your duties as a Code Compliance Investigator requires you to investigate and take enforcement actions against owners of real property in the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. As part of your work, you take actions to cloud real property by recording notices of violation, authorizing the recordation of tax liens on real property, obtaining court judgments and hearing officer decisions, and taking other enforcement sanctions, including the assessment of civil penalties and code costs. These actions, individually and collectively, can affect the value of real estate and the ability of owners to obtain financing from lending institutions.
Employment as a mortgage broker handling real estate loans for properties in the unincorporated area of the County, as originally proposed, could compromise your impartiality and integrity as a Code Compliance Investigator. The opportunities for disparate treatment of clients or former clients of the Coast Lending Group with enforcement problems is obvious. You could decide to slow down a recordation so as to facilitate a refinancing; not take an enforcement action at all for a client; or manipulate official County records for personal gain. The fact that you could derive a financial benefit as a result of one or more of these actions creates an intolerable situation. After discussing this matter with management staff, you proposed limiting your broker activities to properties within the incorporated cities of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, Capitola, Watsonville, or outside of the County altogether.
Candidly, we would prefer that you limit your loan activities to properties completely outside of the County, including not processing any loans for properties in any of the cities within the County. This is the cleanest and clearest separation of responsibilities. But we are willing to allow you to act as a broker for properties within the Cities on a trial basis, subject to review within one year and annually thereafter until further notice. While it would appear that limiting loan activities to properties within the Cities would eliminate the most direct conflicts, we still have some reservations about the proposal that can best be addressed by taking a harder look at this after a period of time. The Department reserves the right to issue a modified interpretation following the trial period, or at the time of annual reconsideration.
In addition, it is our position that you must also decline to act as a broker for any individual who also owns property within the unincorporated area of the County, even if the loan that you are handling is for a property that is within an incorporated city or outside of the County. Otherwise, it would be possible for an individual to direct business your way for one or more properties within a city in exchange for favorable consideration with regard to a violation for a property in the unincorporated area. To ensure that these conditions are being met, you will need to provide a written summary of any loans that you handled as a broker and include the physical address of the property for which the loan is being made, the owner’s name(s), and the owner’s current address. This information must be provided to David Laughlin by the fifth day of each month. If there are no loan transactions to report in any given month, simply report that to David by EMAIL.
Obviously you must not allow any aspect of your actions as a mortgage broker to in anyway interfere or affect your actions as a Code Compliance Investigator, Further, you are directed to disclose in writing to your supervisor, David Laughlin, if you become aware that another mortgage broker with Coast Lending Group is processing a loan for an owner of a property with a pending enforcement case anywhere in the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County.
“ Planning Department employees shall not perform any work, service or counsel for compensation outside of the Planning Department where any part of such employee's efforts will be subject to approval by any other officer, employee, board or commission of the Planning Department or County of Santa Cruz, unless otherwise approved in the manner prescribed by subdivision (b) of County Code Section 3.40.020.”
As a mortgage broker, you or your clients may need signoffs by fellow code investigators to expunge violations, or approve permits issued by the Planning Department to resolve violations. To avoid violation of this provision, you must limit your loan activities to properties within the incorporated cities and/or outside of Santa Cruz County, and subject to the other restrictions enumerated under number 1 above.
2. “Use of County owned or provided equipment, materials, or property for personal benefit or profit.
3. Use of Departmental position for personal benefit or profit.”
The work of a mortgage broker requires a great deal of follow-up contact, information exchange, and paper movement with clients, lenders, banks, title companies, and others. Often this work must be done under time pressures and deadlines during the normal workdays while you are employed as a Code Investigator. You are reminded that the use of County owned equipment, materials, or property for personal benefit or profit is a violation of County policy and any employee that violates this policy is subject to disciplinary action. Therefore, there must be an absolute “firewall” during your work day to completely insulate your County work from your outside employment and not use County time, County telephones, fax, computers, copy machine, or your assigned vehicle to meet these obligations as they might arise. As a Code Investigator assigned to the Aptos Office, you have a great deal of independence and autonomy, and there is little direct supervision of your daily activities. Any instance in which this boundary is breached would be unacceptable and would have extremely serious consequences.
Furthermore, while you are now working a 4/10 schedule, the Department is reviewing all of these previously approved alternate schedules to determine whether they still make good business sense. Certain schedules have already been changed. This is to reiterate that your work schedule could also be changed in the future. Therefore, you may only have weekends and evenings available for outside employment, not one workday a week, as is now the case for outside activities. This will place even an even greater burden on you to maintain clear boundaries between your public employment, and your private employment. It is difficult for us to imagine how you can effectively function as a mortgage broker under these circumstances; but this is your challenge. But if your outside employment begins to infringe in any way on your duty as a public employee, it is incumbent upon you to resolve this by either ceasing one or the other.
In addition, as you know, it is our plan to relocate all of the Code staff to our Santa Cruz location. Due to space constraints, this is being done is a phased manner; but you should expect to relocate at some point in the future.
4. “Employment by and/or receipt of compensation, gifts, or awards of any kind, either directly or indirectly, from any person, company, corporation or other public or private entity, seeking or receiving permits, approvals or other services from the Planning Department. “
5. “Receipt of gifts, rewards or favors of any kind, either directly or indirectly, from applicants, contractors, consultants, or any other such persons who have in the past sought, are currently seeking, or may be reasonably foreseen in the future to seek permits, approvals or other services from the Planning Department, either for themselves or on behalf of another.
As a mortgage officer you could receive compensation from individuals who could seek permits and/or other approvals from the Planning Department. To avoid any violation of these provisions, you must not provide your services as a mortgage broker to anyone who owns real property within the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County, even if the specific loan is for a property outside the unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. Furthermore, you must not provide your services as a mortgage broker to applicants, contractors, consultants, or any other such persons who have in the past sought, are currently seeking, or may be reasonably foreseen in the future to seek permits, approvals or other services from the Planning Department, either for themselves or on behalf of another.
6. Rendering Departmental services, including, but not limited to, building inspections, plan reviews, and application processing, in such a way as to favor or prefer, for personal benefit or profit, any person, company, corporation, public entity or other entity, over others similarly situated.”
7. “Intentionally performing or failing to perform Departmental duties in a manner other than with a good faith application of the governing land use statutes, codes, regulations and/or standards.”
Again, opportunities abound in your capacity as a Code Compliance Investigator to either alter how your work is carried out, or influence the work of other employees, to benefit a client of yours or your firm. By limiting your work to properties outside of the unincorporated portion of the County and complying with the other conditions set forth in this interpretation, this possibility would be greatly reduced.
“Violations of these policies are grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including suspension and dismissal. Questions regarding these policies should be directed to the employee's immediate supervisor. Employees have the right to request a written interpretation from the Planning Director regarding the application of these rules. The application or interpretation of these rules by the Planning Director are subject to the employee's right of appeal set forth in Personnel Rules, Section 173.”
In your advertisement, you indicate that you are beginning a new career with Coast Lending Group. It is very disappointing that you opted to launch into this new enterprise without first checking it out - the potential conflicts should be obvious. This was very poor judgment on your part and it has created an awkward situation for both you and for the department. In the future you are expected to follow the applicable administrative procedures as stated in the Departments Incompatible Activities Policy and the limitations and conditions set forth in this interpretation.
Appeal Rights
You have the right to appeal our application or interpretation of these rules as provided in Section 173 Incompatible Activities of the Personnel Rules, (Attachment 5). Section D specifies that you shall have two weeks after receiving a decision concerning incompatible activities from the Department Head to appeal to the Review Board. This memo constitutes such a decision and therefore you have two weeks from the date of this memo to file an appeal. To file an appeal, you must prepare and deliver a written appeal to the Personnel Director no later than 5 p.m. April 22, 2005.
Section 173 Incompatible Activities F describes the appeal process. If an appeal is filed it is heard by a Review Board composed of representatives from the Personnel Department, County Counsel’s Office and the County Administrative Office. Appeals are to be heard within two weeks and a decision rendered within one week of the hearing. The decisions by the Review Board shall be final, and no further appeals are allowed.
If you elect not to appeal this determination, please sign and return this document to David Laughlin to confirm your receipt and acknowledge the limitations and conditions under which you can act as a mortgage broker while employed as a Code Compliance Investigator III with the County. A copy of this interpretation will be place in your Personnel file.
____________________________________ ______________
Gustavo Gonzalez Date
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Statement of Incompatible Activities, Planning Department Policies and Procedures Manual.
2. Newspaper advertisement w/ translation
3. Confidential Memorandum From David Laughlin to Gustavo Gonzalez, 3/17/05.
4. Confidential Memorandum from Gustavo Gonzalez to Tom Burns, 3/18/05.
5. Confidential Memorandum from Gustavo Gonzalez to Tom Burns, 3/24/05.
Santa Cruz County Government with out Really Working
with The County Personnel Department and CAO as their more than willing accomplices- Keeps Rewarding and Promoting the Worst "Public Servants" and Their Best Bureaucrats Like Sean Livingston
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
|
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 6, 2005
To: Personnel Director – Dania Torres-Wong
From: Planning Director – Tom Burns
Re: PROMOTIONAL ONLY RECRUITMENT FOR SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR
The Chief Building Inspector manages the Inspection Services Section. The second in command is the Supervising Building Inspector position, which is presently vacant. We are in the process of trying to fill that position, but have encountered difficulties, as you are aware. Therefore, this position will likely remain vacant for another couple of months. The position of Senior Building Inspector is the next in line, and is the lead inspector in the field. The incumbent is retiring in Dec. It is critical for this position to be filled quickly, to ensure adequate ongoing oversight of our field inspection function.
In order to expedite this process, we are recommending a promotional only recruitment to fill this upcoming vacancy. In addition, the likely candidates for the position of Senior Building Inspector are currently employed with the County as Building Inspectors, and there are several who meet the minimum qualifications for the next level.
If a building inspector is selected off a promotional list for the position of Senior Building Inspector, that will create a vacancy at the Building Inspector I/II level. We have a need for a bilingual building Inspector in the field, and it is our intention to designate the next vacant building inspector as a bilingual position. This promotional recruitment will likely accelerate that process.
Please contact me if I can
answer any questions. Thank you for your assistance.
"We are in the process of trying to fill that position, but have encountered difficulties,
as you are aware." Tom Burns
Burns to another well placed Democratic Party Corrupt bureaucrat, Personnel Director Dania Torres-Wong on how he considers promoting Building Inspector ll Scott Walker a "difficulty".
Scott Walker applied for the Supervising Building Inspector Job, was qualified by the County Personnel Department, interviewed by Jennifer Hutchinson, Tom Burns and Crew.
Jennifer Hutchinson then ANNOUNCED in a Building Department staff meeting that Scott Walker had interviewed for the position but " he did not have the skills or experience for the job"-
IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING DEPT STAFF!
GREAT for Management Control-
Horrible for Employee Morale
Thus Burns, Hutchinson were then able to HAND PICK yet another of their fellow travelers- hired of the transfer list from San Francisco, no competition, no problem and again NO EXPERIENCE in Rafael Torres - Gil, just another bureaucrat to mold and direct beholding to Tom Burns, David Lee and Jennifer Hutchinson. ....and Rafael Torres- Gil has about the same level of experience as Building Official Jennifer Hutchinson- NONE!