The
Director of Building Inspections, Mr. Delmus Wilkinson – Building Official, and
the Assistant Director of Building Inspections, Ms. Tam Landis, two of the ones
who were forcing us to follow non-existent regulations, were in attendance (she
was the secretary to the Board). They
made many false statements regarding the regulations and me. Most of the time they nudged each other and
giggled, like high-school sweethearts, and made fun of me as I presented
official material.
All
of the Board Members were licensed contractors, bonded and insured, who were
required to obey Construction Laws which in Pensacola were covered in the
Standard Building Code. Some of the
Board Members were owners of multi-million dollar enterprises. Yet, the Board Members admitted to consistently
breaking the construction law themselves which resulted in additional income
from unnecessary construction required by City Officials and the opportunity to
steal building materials and artifacts from property owners – such as happened
to us.
The
whole board appeared to be heavily biased in favor of City Officials. The Board ignored the Standard Building Code
Regulations I supplied, the only official construction regulation authorized in
Pensacola, which clearly showed that the City Officials were breaking the law.
Mr.
Wilkinson used his usual excuse for refusing to recognize exceptions listed in
the regulation when he said at the meeting, “So in order to use the building
code you’ve got to use it as a whole and not just pick out just one sentence
that might fit your particular need.” He
meant that he ignored all official, defined exceptions to the applicability of these
rules; such as a CO is not appropriate on change of tenant if the
classification remained the same. Mr.
Wilkinson also ignored the exclusion for properly documented historic houses,
which ours was. These interpretations on
the part of Mr. Wilkinson were in violation of the Standard Building Code.
Breaking
the only authorized construction law in Pensacola (the SBC) apparently provided
the Board Members with a windfall income based on illegal demands. The Board Members fiercely defended these
illegal requirements.
This
fact was evidenced when Board Member James C. Moulton stated, “I’m not talking
about the Standard Building Code. I’m
talking about a local ordinance.”
Excerpts
from the verbatim transcript of the Pensacola Construction Board
of Appeals Meeting follow:
of Appeals Meeting follow:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes of Board Meeting – beginning of the discussion of my case
Minutes of Board Meeting – beginning of the discussion of my case
Board
Member James Boyd: Ms. Mead, I spent
about three hours of my time reading all these letters and proposals
today. It seems to me that the problem
here is not that the City has not accepted the fact that it is a commercial
facility. Is that the problem?
Mary
Mead: No. But I’m not changing…
Board
Member James Boyd: (inaudible)
Mary
Mead: There is a problem on when a
Certificate of Occupancy is required.
Board
Member James Boyd: It’s required anytime
you change. It’s just for the protection
of a businessman and I do it every day.
Mary
Mead: Every time you change what?
Board
Member James Boyd: You change the
occupant or you change the use.
Mary
Mead: Okay. But where is that? See I have been through the Building Code and
I spoke to the authors of it. I have
spoken to the people in Tallahassee but that isn’t in here. That is being enforced and it specifically
says otherwise. If you would (Board
Member James C. Moulton: excuse me) turn
to the next page (Board Member James C. Moulton: excuse me).
Board
Member James C. Moulton: Is that the
local ordinance?
Mary
Mead: This is the Standard Building
Code.
Board
Member James C. Moulton: I’m not talking
about the Standard Building Code. I’m
talking about a local ordinance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a lengthy discussion of the situation. I was the only attendee who had a copy
of the Standard Building Code and the only one who referenced the SBC as the official
authority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes
of Board Meeting – the end of the discussion of my caseThere was a lengthy discussion of the situation. I was the only attendee who had a copy
of the Standard Building Code and the only one who referenced the SBC as the official
authority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board
Chairman Ken Woolf: That’s the reason I
was asking you. Mr. Fleming’s here.
Mr.
John Fleming: I’m John Fleming from the
City Attorney’s Office. I think Mr.
Wilkinson has ably stated the City’s position.
Board
Member Don Jehle: One other
question. Delmus were you – this
Declaratory Statement from the Building Commission. Did you that attend that here or did someone
from the City attend?
Mr.
Wilkinson: No, I didn’t. That was a written statement that was sent to
them and addressed to them and I don’t disagree with the Declaratory Statement. It is not saying anything other than – I mean
I’ve agreed with what they have said. It
is not a change of occupancy. But that’s
not the issue they were addressing.
Board
Member Don Jehle: I understand. I just wanted to make sure.
Mr.
Wilkinson: No. No.
Board
Member James Boyd: I have read all of
Mr. Wilkinson’s –
Board
Chairman Ken Woolf: Speak up.
Board
Member Boyd: I have read all of Mr.
Wilkinson’s letters of correspondence to Mrs. Mead, and other than some
innuendoes and personal accusations, I find nothing legally binding that would
change my mind as to the importance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
protection of the public, their safety, and their welfare.
Board
Chairman Ken Woolf: Is that a motion?
Board
Member James Boyd. I make a motion that
– well howdya – I don’t think we’ve had one quite like this before, have
we? I’ll have to put on my glasses and
look at it. I guess the simplest thing
to do would just be to make a motion that the variance be denied. Actually, she’s contesting the legality.
Mary
Mead: Absolutely.
Board
Member James Boyd: of the situation
Mary
Mead: Right.
Board
Member James Boyd: Which I’m trying to
figure out how (inaudible)
Mr.
Wilkinson: It wouldn’t be a variance
request. Ms. Mead is appealing my
interpretation of the Building Code. Therefore,
the Board would either be upholding my interpretation of the Code or overruling
my interpretation and granting her appeal.
Board
Member James Boyd: OK I that – I make a
motion to uphold the City’s position.
Board
Chairman Ken Woolf. Do we have a second?
Board
Member Don Jehle: Second.
Board
Chairman Ken Woolf: Any comments? OK.
All in favor. Does everyone
understand the motion? All in favor,
aye.
Board
Members: Aye.
Board
Chairman Ken Woolf: All opposed, nay.
Board
Chairman Ken Woolf: OK. Thank you Ms. Mead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since
everyone had voted “Aye,” I was dismissed from the meeting.
Board
Member Boyd stated, “I find nothing legally binding that would change my mind
as to the importance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the protection of the
public, their safety, and their welfare.”
That’s because Mr. Boyd and all other Board Members studiously ignored
the Standard Building Code which is the required construction authority for
Pensacola.
The
Building Inspections Department is not authorized or responsible for the
protection of the public, their safety, and their welfare. The Fire Department is authorized and has the
responsibility to protect the public, their safety and welfare in their buildings
by conducting fire and safety inspections to insure this.
Regulations forbid the Building Inspection Department the authority and
responsibility for this job.
The
Pensacola Construction Board of Appeals voted to continue to allow City
Officials (Mr. Bonfield, Mr. Caton, and Mr. Wilkinson) to break the Standard
Building Code regulations.
I
researched the composition of the Board.
I found that there appeared to be a major conflict of interest since:
1) all of the Board Members were
contractors who appeared to benefit by the illegal requirement to force the CO
procedure on property owners.
2) almost all of the Board Members had
contracts and were doing business with the City, or, in other words, were de
facto employees of the City and not independent or impartial at all.
Florida
Statutes prohibit a member of an advisory board to “corruptly use or attempt to
use his or her official position or any property or resource which may be
within his or her trust, or perform his or her official duties, to secure a
special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others.” as
discussed in Chapter (6) printed below.
It appeared that the Board members support and enforce illegal
requirements which provide a benefit to themselves since they are members of
the construction community.
Florida Statutes prohibit a member of an
advisory board, or his employer, from having a contract with the City as
discussed in Chapter (7) printed below.
Almost all of the Board Members had lucrative contracts with the City in
violation of Florida Statutes.
THE 1999 FLORIDA STATUTES
THE 1999 FLORIDA STATUTES
(1)
DEFINITION.--As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires,
the term "public officer" includes any person elected or appointed to
hold office in any agency, including any person serving on an advisory body.
(6) MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.--No
public officer, employee of an agency, or local government attorney shall
corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official position or any property or
resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her official
duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself,
herself, or others.
(7) CONFLICTING EMPLOYMENT OR
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP.--
(a) No public officer or employee
of an agency shall have or hold any employment or contractual relationship with
any business entity or any agency which is subject to the regulation of, or is
doing business with, an agency of which he or she is an officer or employee,
excluding those organizations and their officers who, when acting in their
official capacity, enter into or negotiate a collective bargaining contract
with the state or any municipality, county, or other political subdivision of
the state; nor shall an officer or employee of an agency have or hold any
employment or contractual relationship that will create a continuing or
frequently recurring conflict between his or her private interests and the
performance of his or her public duties or that would impede the full and
faithful discharge of his or her public duties.
…It appeared that the City Officials and the contractors, especially the ones on the Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals, partnered together to establish their own policies which are forbidden by the Standard Building Code, the construction law, to further their own interests and, in the process, have caused great harm to property owners in Pensacola.
We
were constantly threatened that we could be arrested if we did not follow the
demands of the inspectors in the Building Inspection Department even if their
demands were against the law. Mr.
Wilkinson or one of his employees, dressed in their pseudo police uniforms,
constantly patrolled our house and frequently barged in and made illegal
demands.
It
appeared that City Officials refused to allow the people of Pensacola to live
under the rule of law and under the U.S. Constitution but instead, subjected them to
illegal demands which violated the law despite the fact that a many of us,
including my husband and myself, served our country in the military to protect
and defend the constitution of the United States. Even though the Constitution guaranteed equal
treatment under the law, City Officials denied us the use of law enforcement, denied
us the protection of the law, our assets were being stolen and City Officials
appeared to regularly break the law and their actions were condoned by the Pensacola
Police Department, the Escambia County Sheriff, the Florida State Attorney,
DBPR and Governor Jeb Bush.
I
wrote Mr. Bonfield, Pensacola City Manager, on August 5, 1999, again
pinpointing the illegal actions on the part of City Officials, and informed him
that the Board he had insisted I appear before voted to continue illegal
practices in Pensacola. I also sent a
copy of the verbatim transcript of the meeting.
“Yesterday I appeared before the Construction Board of Appeals, as you
have frequently suggested, for relief as you have refused to do anything to
correct the Pensacola Building Inspection Department’s misinterpretation and
misapplication of the Standard Building Code in regard to Certificate of
Occupancy (CO).”
I
summarized the meeting with the result that the Construction Board of Appeals
voted unanimously to allow the Building Inspection Department to continue
illegally requiring a certificate of occupancy on change of tenant. I stated to him that, “Several members closed
their eyes and sat with pained expressions most of the time. Ms. Landis and Mr. Wilkinson rolled eyes at
each other. The Board would not even
address the illegal passage of 8-99.”
It
appeared that the City Officials were very friendly to this special
interest group – developers in Pensacola which included builders, architects
and real estate professionals.
At
the same time, Pensacola City Officials were hostile to regular folks. City Officials refused to enforce any Florida
Statutes which legally limited the power of this special interest group which
included Florida State Statutes regarding conflict of interest for members of
advisory boards, Florida State Statutes regarding discipline by the City
Building Official (Mr. Wilkinson) regarding contractor misconduct and the
Standard Building Code which forbade requiring a Certificate of Occupancy on
change of tenant, etc.
I,
again, asked Mr. Bonfield, as the Pensacola City Manager, to have the Building
Inspection Department do their job by obeying the law in regard to CO’s and
proper inspections of contractor’s work before accepting it as complete.
Below
is the official report of the City of Pensacola Construction Board of Adjustments
and Appeals.
