Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 Introduce Building Inspection Staff CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: August 8 , 1983 SUBJECT Introduction of Contract Building Inspection Staff EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from Vic Taugher dated August 4, 1983 ; Letter from County Counsel to Alameda County Board --of Supervisors dated July 20 , 1983 RECOMMENDATId �v ' None FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION Attached is a brief background resume of the Building Inspection Staff which will be working for Taugher and Associates for the period of the City ' s contract for , building inspection services . Mr. Taugher will introduce several of the Staff Members to the City Council at its meeting . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. , • It TADGHER AND ASSOCIATES 18681 Vineyard Road Castro Valley CA 94546 537-2285 August 4, 1983 Mr. Richard C. Ambrose City Manager City of Dublin P.O. Box 2340 Dublin CA 94568 Dear Mr. Ambrose: I am pleased to announce that Taugher and Associates has the following staff to provide inspection services for the city of Dublin. Robert C. White will be the Building Inspector, he will staff the Building Inspection Department office daily from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. Thereafter, he will perform inspection and enforcement services. Mr. White has extensive experience in both building construction and building inspection. He has ten years experience as an owner's representative and a construction superintendent on projects in South San Francisco, Hillsborough, Newport Beach, and Reno, Nevada. He has worked five years in the Building Inspection Departments of the cities of Petaluma and Daly City, and of the County of Alameda. When he was with Alameda County he was assigned to an area which included the city of Dublin for approximately one year. Because of superior performance, he was promoted to Construction Inspector. For the last three and a half years he has been assigned to major building projects in the county's Capital Projects Program. Clark Keeney will be a part-time Building Inspector who will be available as needed, depending on the work load. He will also be available for vacation relief. Mr. Kenney has had twenty years service with the County Building Inspection Department. He began his career as a Building Inspector I, advanced to Senior Electrical Inspector, and finally to Supervising Building Inspector. He retired from Alameda County in 1982. Eugene B. Pester will be available as Acting Building Official on an as needed basis. Mr. Pester has been in the building inspection field for thirty-two years and has had twenty-eight years experience as a Building Official. He was Building Official of the cities of Fontana and Ponoma in Southern California, and was Building Official of the city of Fremont for six years. Mr. Pester is highly respected in his profession. He has held all the offices and served on practically all the standing committees of the International Conferences of Building Officials; he served as president of ICBO in 1972-1973. Mr. Pester retired from the city of Fremont in 1982. When the contract for Building Inspection Services was awarded to Taugher and Associates a question of conflict of interest was raised. Attached is a copy of a letter from the County Counsel to the Board of Supervisors regarding that allegation for your information. Sincerely, Victor L. Taugher Enclosure .y q C O U N T Y C O U N S E L � FOURTH FLOOR,ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1221 OAK STREET RICHARD J.MOORE OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA 94612 TELEPHONE 874-5728 COUNTY COUNSEL C'gLIFOV Nk July 20, 1983, :f �:� i i,� 1983 Co;:.:'�t.Y O. AL.ArY�LDA Honorable Board of Supervisors BU,!_D1NG iP:A r ECTION 5th Floor, Administration Building DEPAPTMENT 1221 Oak Street Oakland, California 94612 Re: County Building Official and City of Dublin Dear Board Members: At your June 28, 1983 Board meeting, objection was made by a representa- tive of SEIU Local 616 to the intended employment, commencing in August 1933, of the present county Building Official to perform building inspection services for the City of Dublin and contended that his actions constituted a conflict of interest in violation of section 2-1.22 of the Alameda County Administrative Code and section 1126(a) of the Government Code. You asked this office for a report. We understand the facts to be as follows. Since its incorporation, the City of Dublin has contracted with the county for the performance of certain civic and governmental functions by the county on behalf of the city, including, but not limited to, the provision of. police protection services and certain planning and building func- tions. The county Building Official is retiring from county service on July 31, 1983. In October, 1982, he was informed by the Dublin City Manager that the city would not be extending its contract with the county for the performance of building inspection services, preferring instead to hire its own building official. A few days later, the - Building Official asked the City. Manager if he could submit his own proposal for the job and was told that he could. After his proposal was sent to the city, and in April 1983, the county was requested to make a proposal for 198344. The Building Official then informed his supervisors that since he had sent in his own bid he could not work on p.eparirg the county's proposaL Accordingly, the work connected with preparing the county's proposal was assigned to another. After all proposals were in, the City Council selected the Building Official. As a result, he has accepted employment by the Cite of Dublin after his retirement from county service and, consequently, the county will no longer be contracting with the city for the performance oi this particular service. ' Under these facts, it is our opinion that there is no conflict involved. As to the applicability of Government Code section 1126(a), it should be noted that this statute prohibits a county employee from engaging in ". . . any employment, activity, or enterprise for compensation which is inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to his or her duties as a local agency officer or employee. . .." Assuming that this code section is applicable to the present Honorable Board of Supervisors July 20, 1983 Page Two case, there is no violation under these facts because the building official will no longer be an employee of Alameda County; hence, any activities he performs for the City of Dublin would not be in conflict with any of his duties as an Alameda County officer or employee. Also, at the time he submitted his proposal to.the city, the building official did not receive compensation from the city; hence, he did not engage in this "activity" or "enterprise" for pay. Uncompensated outside activities are not within the purview of section 1126(a). Section 66 of the Charter is repeated in almost verbatim fashion in Ad- ministrative Code §2-1.22. That section prohibits a county officer or employee from receiving any 'commission, money, or thing of value, or from deriving any profit, benefit or advantage, directly or indirectly, from or by reason of his dealings with, or service for the county except his lawful compensation as such officer or employee. It goes on to provide that any violation thereof ". . . shall render the contract or transaction involved voidable at the option of the Board of Supervisors". However, as noted above, at the time he will be performing this service for the city, he will no longer be an employee of the county. Therefore, he will not be receiving anything "in addition" to his lawful compensation as a county employee. Likewise, when he submitted his proposal to the city he did not receive compensation or any prohibited emolument from Dublin. Moreover, the remedy provided by section 66 would not be available to the county in any event because it is not a party to any contract or transaction between the official and the City of Dublin. The remedy would apply to a situation in which the county itself was one of the contracting parties and it was discovered that an officer or employee was a beneficiary of the contract. In such a case, the Board would have the authority to void the contract. However, the Board has no legal authority or power to interfere in a contract between the city and one of its employees where the county has no contracted interest to be protected. The Building Official or any other county officer or employee has the right to retire from county service if he' or she chooses and the right to be employed elsewhere after he or she has severed all ties with the county, or even while being employed by the county provided that no conflict exists between the dual employments. In doing so no law is violated. Very truly yours, RICHARD J. iJOORE, County Counsel RJ!YI:TJF:bjh cc: Each Board ;Member Public Works County Administrator SEIU Local 616 bcc: Vic Taugher